Reparty Posted July 18, 2018 Author Share Posted July 18, 2018 (edited) Thank you all for your responses. Sorry for the delay in getting back but I got diverted by a Mirage IV thing I had to do. And subsequently think I need the Heller 1/72 and 1/48 iterations as TSR2 companions in both scales By a stroke of prescience, I seem to have laid aside the Falcon set some time ago, though I'm blowed if I know where the rest of it has ended up. Although, that is one thing I've noticed on Hampden models viewed on the internet generally is the neatness of their windscreen/canopy arrangements, rather than the 'battleship' engineering as used on the real thing. One thing that does concern me is that from what I recall, Airfix props tend to get worse through every mould revision, getting skinnier and losing definition as they go. That wasn't so much of a problem when Aeroclub was around to provide replacements, but now they're not and we're on our own it''s an issue (unless a recent purchaser can set my mind at rest that the current props are still quite good). Edited to include I just heard that the local Chemist's where I bought my first and so far only Hampden, in the summer of 1971, is still there. Although, alas, they no longer stock model kits. Edited July 18, 2018 by Reparty nostalgia 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 The AZ kit has just been re-released. Hannants have it at what struck me as a very reasonable price, especially compared to the Valom originals they still list. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 Did all the AZ repops of the Valom Hampden have the same clear sprue, I left it too late to get the TB.1 boxing & but would be keen on the re-released one but does the bomber kit have the same clear sprue as the TB.1 kit? Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Hi some interesting photos about halfway down the page here of the rear bombay internals of the canadian TB hampden , it doesnt have a cut out http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/Museums of Pacific Northwest/Canadian Museum of Flight.htm I might just base my model on this one as it is an ex pat bat a/c cheers jerry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) No cut out means it isn't a torpedo bomber, because it would then be unable to carry the torpedo. It may (or may not?) have a TB serial painted on the side, but that doesn't make it a TB airframe. If I'm viewing it right, it doesn't have the reduced depth ventral gun position either, nor the heavy duty carrier in the bomb bay. Those are the three linked modifications that allowed the Hampden to carry a torpedo, and they were all needed. It may be of course that Pat Bay had some standard bomber Hampdens for flying training. The serials should tell us that. In a parallel universe, maybe the Hampden could have been fitted with some kind of spacing structure to carry the torpedo outside the bomb bay, below the external lines and thus not affecting the shape of that aft bulkhead. However, that would have the required the ground to be lower. PS the bomb-bay doors on this example are invented. The standard Hampden has two doors on each side. On the armed TB the outer doors close and the inner doors rest on the sides of the torpedo until that is dropped, then closing normally. Edited July 20, 2018 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 If you read their page on the aircraft - see my link at the bottom of page 1 of this thread P5436 was a wreck when salvaged so I'm not sure how much faith you can put in it. The museum also had two other wrecks (or parts therof). Given Graham's note on the fictitious bomb bay doors I wonder if the original bomb bay suffered so much in the crash there was not enough left to indicate what it should be like. The general shape may have been taken from one of the others which may (I haven't checked the serials) have been standard bombers. As with all restored aircraft tread carefully - you can always make an accurate model of P5436 as she is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 P5436 is described as having developed stabilised yaw after dropping its torpedo then crashing into Vancouver Bay. It was a Canadian-built aircraft - I can't find any reference to the build standard of these aircraft so assume that all were built as TBs. Does anyone have better information? For those that were built as TBs, shouldn't they be in Temperate Sea Scheme? As far as not blindly trusting rebuilds, I don't believe that the original bomb bay had no roof, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsmekanik Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 On 7/19/2018 at 6:50 AM, stevehnz said: Did all the AZ repops of the Valom Hampden have the same clear sprue, I left it too late to get the TB.1 boxing & but would be keen on the re-released one but does the bomber kit have the same clear sprue as the TB.1 kit? Steve. Yes it does 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 6 hours ago, rossm said: .......... you can always make an accurate model of P5436 as she is today. Hi An interesting idea, as it is only located about 1 hr from me cheers jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vildebeest Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 On 7/18/2018 at 9:11 PM, Reparty said: The thing that does concern me is that from what I recall, Airfix props tend to get worse through every mould revision, getting skinnier and losing definition as they go. That wasn't so much of a problem when Aeroclub was around to provide replacements, but now they're not and we're on our own it''s an issue (unless a recent purchaser can set my mind at rest that the current props are still quite good)... I have a completed kit from, it must be the 1980's, and an unbuilt one from 5 or 6 years ago - whenever they did the VC awards box set - and the props look much the same. Paul 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) Good link HERE , scroll down past the whitley bit for a cutaway of a Hampden which might help. There are some great Hampden pictures in there as well a lot I haven't seen on other aircraft. In fact the whole site is an interesting read anyway! Selwyn Edited July 24, 2018 by Selwyn 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reparty Posted July 24, 2018 Author Share Posted July 24, 2018 Thanks for the review of the props Paul, and thanks for the links, Jerry and Selwyn. Some nice Lysander interior detail shots as a bonus in your link Jerry, and a good read as well as the photos in Selwyn's. I'll have to look out some monograph titles to find out just how comfortable that narrow fuselage was in full flying kit, and what the options were if disaster struck the pilot. I've opted for the AZ kit and await it's arrival. The surface detail looks comprehensive if a bit too overwrought, though that may just be the photographer making sure it stood out in the photos. It should have the revised clear parts included. But it's nice to read your reports that the venerable Airfix kit is still a viable option should a second one be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Starmer Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Many years ago when planning to convert my Hampden to the TB role I visited the RAF museum at Hendon for information. The handbook had been sent to Cosford but I was able to examine a ghosted drawing of the armament arrangement for torpedos. I sketched this at the time and still have it. The ventral position was modified by replacing the original belly plating with a concave panel which allowed the airtail to be fitted. The glazing was reduced to what looked like two flat panels with no provision for guns. There did not appear to be a bulkhead between the bomb bay and the ventral positions. I may have send this sketch to Graham some years ago. I have a picture of TB fuselage at Brush Coachworks where they were converted, this shows a definite different ventral glazing to normal. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 (edited) I'm afraid that you didn't, Mike, but I do have official drawings of the Test Installation. These unfortunately feature the carrier and the weapon from the front 3/4 and so do not show the rear in suitable detail, but I have handled the rear gunner's gondola/fairing myself. There's no doubt that the ventral position was reduced in depth, hence the step behind the bomb bay doors when closed which led to the false interpretation of altered bay doors. Photos show that the bulkhead at the rear of the bomb bay was still in place but reduced in depth as well as the concave panel in the belly - which I referred to above as a wedge but I prefer your description. There was only one side window each side instead of two but the rear glazing was similar to if smaller than that the standard bomber, including a gun position. I'm pretty sure that the lower gun can be seen on photos of TBs. Edited July 26, 2018 by Graham Boak Not a standard heavy store carrier., but various braces added to the standard 2000lb bomb carrier (which is the HBC, I suppose!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Hi Any possibility of either of you both being able/allowed to post a drawing here for those who wish to modify their hampden to a TB cheers jerry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 No, but pm me with your email. The view of the rear position is actually better than I remembered. The key factor is the depth removed of the rear gun position - Putnam's HP Aircraft states 12 inches but this seems a lot - the drawing suggests that it is reduced to the level of the outer bomb bay door when closed, but that may not be precise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 (edited) Hi found this photo on a web page and thought it maybe of interest to others as it is a nice shot of the cockpit rail ( second photo down ) http://www.415sqn.com/john-enns.html curious is that an oval window in the front side wind screen ? cheers jerry Edited April 10, 2019 by brewerjerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 Probably a clear view panel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 Yes. A clear-view panel. Chris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazontipede Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 Does anyone know the significance (if any) of the 'inverted bomb' mission marking on the second of the IWM photos posted by Chris above? These mission markers lead from the left with bomb, mine, bomb, the 'inverted bomb' and two more bomb markers. An aborted mission perhaps?? Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornet133 Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 Or maybe some Erk just held the stencil upside down when applying the marking that is different. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 3 hours ago, Gazontipede said: Does anyone know the significance (if any) of the 'inverted bomb' mission marking on the second of the IWM photos posted by Chris above? These mission markers lead from the left with bomb, mine, bomb, the 'inverted bomb' and two more bomb markers. An aborted mission perhaps?? Any ideas? Hi I was once told a reversed symbol indicates an attack that was aborted due to mechanical trouble i.e. something like an engine failure over enemy territory cheers jerry 2 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