Jump to content

Ask all your Sea Fury questions here


NAVY870

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NAVY870 said:

Humbrol 74 is near as spit to Hawker yellow.

In reality it bears very little resemblance to sky and is quite different to YZC or its modern equivalents. 

Unfortunately it doesn't photograph well, at least not with my bodge skills

The reason that i asked about a colour match is that i have bought some of the new Humbrol enamel 74, and both tins are a very bright yellow, almost the exact same colour as Yellow Chromate primer. I thought Hawker yellow was a more Buff/Sky colour ?

 I have gone through my stash of paints and Tamiya XF88 seems to be the closest match to the pictures that Steve has posted up. If i get round to it I'll spray some Humbrol 74 and XF88 for comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gareth said:

What do you guys think ? 

Maybe mix a little medium sea gray with HU74 and see what happens? HU74 looks too  bright yellow to me, keeping photo and computer monitor limitations in mind,

Mike

 

@Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies I figured that was going to be what you would say- it was worth a shot, though! Thanks for the reply.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gareth said:

What do you guys think ? 

I think the Hu 74 is the closest, but I agree with you that its too bright. So, remembering my college lessons about Hue, Saturation and Brightness, the Hu 74 is the right colour - or hue - but is too saturated, so Mike's suggestion of adding grey would seem to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have a question good Sirs!

 

Fokker built a small batch of FB Mk.51's texts mentions 'small differences' but does anybody know what those differences were?

Being Dutch, I looked over'ere first, but came up dry.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 12/06/2020 at 07:22, Bozothenutter said:

I have a question good Sirs!

 

Fokker built a small batch of FB Mk.51's texts mentions 'small differences' but does anybody know what those differences were?

Being Dutch, I looked over'ere first, but came up dry.....

 

Probably a bit late, but... 

 

The Sea Fury Mk 50 was the same as the Sea Fury X except for different radio equipment, 22 were built and were subsequently updated to fighter bomber standard. 

 

The Sea Fury Mk 51 was identical to the Sea Fury 11, except for the radio equipment. 25 were built. 

 

Info from Richard A Franks' "Hawker Sea Fury" . 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a link to a thread discussing converting a Sea Fury to a Fury (posting here as it is slightly misplaced in the WWII section). 

 

 

The thread has plenty of detail regarding the differences and clarifying things such as the different tail sizes. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, wellsprop said:

Here's a link to a thread discussing converting a Sea Fury to a Fury (posting here as it is slightly misplaced in the WWII section). 

 

 

The thread has plenty of detail regarding the differences and clarifying things such as the different tail sizes. 

Oh god, now look at what you've done.....that Sabre Fury looks delectable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question regarding the T20 variant, their tail wheels and canopies.

 

Were all T20s built with fixed tail wheels and the tripod periscope arrangement mounted between the cockpits?

 

Looking at Navy Wing's VX281 (the second of 60 Sea Fury T.20 aircraft built as weapon trainers for the Fleet Air Arm)  as now flown, It certainly does not look a standard T20 with it having a retractable tail wheel, no tripod periscope arrangement and what seem to be more streamlined canopies (though that might be an illusion).

 

Were these modifications applied to any T20s whilst in FAA service or is this an export modification?  

 

The Navy Wings blurb says "not being intended for carrier operations the arrester hook was deleted, as was the retractable tailwheel unit – presumably the removal of the associated hydraulic jacks and piping going some way to help redress the centre of gravity issue caused by adding the second cockpit."

 

I'm assuming those T20s seen with retractable tail wheels are mainly flown as single seaters and the  rearwards travel of the CoG is therefore not an issue?

 

I do yearn for an authentic T20 as per the old RNHF WG655.

 

spacer.png

 

I can see that VX281 is partly used as a substitute for F10 VR930, and is accordingly painted in the markings of an F10 single-seat aircraft and is not meant to be an authentic T20. 

 

Still I would hope it would eventually be restored back to it's original FAA configuration, though in the great scheme of things, this will be at the bottom of the Navy Wings funding priorities pile!

 

Simon 

Edited by detail is everything
Added a hard return
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/31/2019 at 5:26 PM, Johnson said:

Paint - matt or satin? Most modellers use matt for the Korean Sea Fury, but this aircraft looks pretty new and clean. Might Hawkers have used satin paint?

It's a bit of a tricky question. Not all areas are matt or satin. For example, the propeller's blades are "dead" matt but the spinner is satin. Or, the engine's cowlings are satin but at some areas they look matt.

 

It's confusing I know! I'm building the Trumpeter 1/72 Sea Fury and yesterday I applied some weathering particularly, on the wings and upper surfaces of the airframe but now, that I had another look at some photos I think I have overdone it. And now I'm also thinking how I should finish it; matt or, satin?

 

By the way, Model Master enamel (matt) varnish gives a great result if you want a "dead" flat matt look.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Shalako said:

And now I'm also thinking how I should finish it; matt or, satin?

 

From looking at the photos of the planes in service most seemed to be matt in appearance. It's my conjecture that they may have started out with a gloss or satin finish but the elements soon put paid to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/01/2021 at 14:09, detail is everything said:

Quick question regarding the T20 variant, their tail wheels and canopies.

 

Were all T20s built with fixed tail wheels and the tripod periscope arrangement mounted between the cockpits?

 

Looking at Navy Wing's VX281 (the second of 60 Sea Fury T.20 aircraft built as weapon trainers for the Fleet Air Arm)  as now flown, It certainly does not look a standard T20 with it having a retractable tail wheel, no tripod periscope arrangement and what seem to be more streamlined canopies (though that might be an illusion).

 

Were these modifications applied to any T20s whilst in FAA service or is this an export modification?  

 

The Navy Wings blurb says "not being intended for carrier operations the arrester hook was deleted, as was the retractable tailwheel unit – presumably the removal of the associated hydraulic jacks and piping going some way to help redress the centre of gravity issue caused by adding the second cockpit."

 

I'm assuming those T20s seen with retractable tail wheels are mainly flown as single seaters and the  rearwards travel of the CoG is therefore not an issue?

 

I do yearn for an authentic T20 as per the old RNHF WG655. spacer.png

 

I can see that VX281 is partly used as a substitute for F10 VR930, and is accordingly painted in the markings of an F10 single-seat aircraft and is not meant to be an authentic T20. 

 

Still I would hope it would eventually be restored back to it's original FAA configuration, though in the great scheme of things, this will be at the bottom of the Navy Wings funding priorities pile!

 

Simon 

 

I've been trying to figure this out myself. 

 

It seems the T20s were manufactured with fixed tailwheels. Many restored T20s have retractable tailwheels and some don't feature headrests.

 

Unfortunately, I can't find a definitive answer. 

 

18 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

The Sabre Fury was a 1944 aeroplane, so not really

 

Fair point! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2021 at 2:09 PM, detail is everything said:

Looking at Navy Wing's VX281 (the second of 60 Sea Fury T.20 aircraft built as weapon trainers for the Fleet Air Arm)  as now flown, It certainly does not look a standard T20 with it having a retractable tail wheel, no tripod periscope arrangement and what seem to be more streamlined canopies (though that might be an illusion).

 

It's not an illusion at all. I first encountered this airframe as Doug Arnold's G-BCOW at Blackbushe in the late '70s, when it had already been cleaned-up and de-cluttered a bit, then Doug did some more work on it, removing the remains of the target tug clobber. Originally in his ownership it looked like this, re-registered but still in its German colours 

Hawker_Sea_Fury_T20S_AN1860669.jpg

 

then like this

49692993458_2a99846ce4_b.jpg

 

...and then for the second time in the Reno desert in the mid '80s, possibly 1987, as NX8467W, "Nuthin' Special". Then it looked like this:

17-1.jpg

 

It gained the retractable tailwheel and aerodynamically superior rear canopy in its US racing career. 

 

Before all of that it was German target tug D-CACO, having gone there in 1963 from being struck off charge by the RN. 

 

"Were all T20s built with fixed tail wheels and the tripod periscope arrangement mounted between the cockpits?"

Yes.

 

"I'm assuming those T20s seen with retractable tail wheels are mainly flown as single seaters and the  rearwards travel of the CoG is therefore not an issue?"

 

No. They were not originally supplied to the RN with fixed tailwheels for CG reasons but to reduce the cost and improve serviceability, an easy call given that the few knots of top speed was not relevant to their mission. Since then so much military equipment has come out of these aeroplanes, and so many other modifications made over the years, that it's really far more complex than that. You strip out what you are ditching, weigh what you have left, figure out what you want to put in and put it in sensible places to get the CG to come out where you want it.

 

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which others are you thinking of? 

 

I would not be surprised if the significantly lower-drag rear canopy arrangement as seen on Nuthin' Special and Dreadnought were the only good-quality replacements available as the moulds are probably knocking around somewhere in the States. If I had to guess where they are I'd start by asking Sanders Aeronautics, I bet they still have them.

 

Dreadnought was of course the ultimate two-seat Fury, with its R-4360

10p_sep2019_robertseale_20120908_reno_ai

 

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of the Navy Wings T20 VX281 - however, i realise you've already mentioned it as, in a previous life, it was "Nothin Special"

 

The photos in this link clearly show the change to the flatter canopy, after 1984.

http://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=79364

 

This is slightly annoying, as I am working on the AMG Sea Fury T20 which has the retractable tail wheel and flatter/less bulged rear canopy. I want to do mine as a production T20 - hence I may need to make some changes!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wellsprop said:

I want to do mine as a production T20 - hence I may need to make some changes!

 

I think for all practical purposes in a relatively small scale like 1/48 you will get away with using a standard single seater canopy at the back, especially if posing it open; and just crash-mould the tunnel, which is a simple single-curved thing, really just a bent piece of flat clear sheet.

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

 

Did AMG get the tailplane right? (i.e. bigger than a single-seater). The PM kit ignored that.

 

 

Yes, they have included some larger resin tailplanes. I'm using the AMG parts to convert the Airfix Sea Fury and I'm going to build the AMG as SR661 in the early days.

 

27 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

 

I think for all practical purposes in a relatively small scale like 1/48 you will get away with using a standard single seater canopy at the back, especially if posing it open; and just crash-mould the tunnel, which is a simple single-curved thing, really just a bent piece of flat clear sheet.

 

I thought about that, however, the cross sections are wrong. The single seater bubble has a trapezium cross section where it meets the windscreen. The 2 seater has a curved cross section.

 

I'm CAD modelling and 3D printing a plug to use for vacforming the canopy.

 

 

Regarding the tailwheel, did the T20 tail wheel assembly differ significantly from the single seater? Obviously it is non-retractable, but would the standard Airfix kit part be suitable for the T20?

 

Cheers

Ben

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, wellsprop said:

did the T20 tail wheel assembly differ significantly from the single seater?

Yes. I don't have any of my Airfix, Falcon and Hobbycraft-with-full-Cooper Details set Sea Furies to hand and it's at least 25 years since I last built one, but if you have good look at this tailwheel - huge pic so not linking directly - you will see there is a unicorn-like forward pointing horn on the retracting version. Offhand I would guess this is what pushes on something to raise the doors behind the retracting leg.  I am pretty sure I recall that horn being on the Cooper Details leg, you tell me if it's on the Airfix and AMG ones. 

http://www.grubbyfingersshop.com/walkaround_galleries/HAWKER_Sea_Fury_Walkaround_WG630_RAN_Nowra_2014/content/HAWKER_Sea_Fury_Walkaround_WG630_RAN_Nowra_2014_24_GrubbyFingers_large.html

 

The rest looks pretty much as per the pic of WG661 in https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235033342-ask-all-your-sea-fury-questions-here/&do=findComment&comment=3957956 above. Pick your own extension angle, the two seaters generally seem to sit on the ground with roughly an included angle of about 120 degrees.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 9 months later...

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...