Typhoon,Bombphoon,Flakphoon?

[dalea]

I'm sure this has been asked before but I can't find it. I know certain squadrons specialised in carrying bombs or rockets but what is appropriate for the original issue of the new tool Airfix kit. I've got to open the appropriate holes in the lower wing before proceeding.

[Chris Thomas]

If you can't find it I'm sure I can't. So ...

 

the recent Airfix kit is a four-blader and these saw are service from just before D-Day onwards. Over the same period  the squadrons specialised as follows.

 

RP 137, 164, 174, 175, 181, 182, 184, 198, 245, 247, 609.

Bombs 193, 197, 257, 438, 439, 440.

 

183, 263 and 266 use RP or bombs at various times during this period. 168 Sqn used neither!

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Chris Thomas
Typo

[gingerbob]

Which brings up a question I've been considering asking:

 

On later production/mod aircraft, and in this case I guess we're talking about "big tail" 4-bladed ones, did Typhoon wings have the same mount holes, etc, to receive either RP or bomb pylons (or a combination)?  That is, was the wing ready for either ("Universal"), or was it more particular than that?  I know I've seen some photos that show small holes where rocket mounts could be fitted, but don't know if that's "standard" or less general than that.

 

bob

[TBC]

Be aware that when mounting bombs, the 1,000lb bombs used a different pylon attachment point than 250 and 500 pounders, which both used the same. Can post pics later but someone will no doubt beat me to it. Pics attached now.

 

First, the inner-most pylon attachment point for the lighter bombs-a 500-pounder in this case.

 

 

 

 

 

Below is a 1000-pounder being loaded and its respective location. And if you look just inboard you can see the attachment point for the location seen above. Many years ago I had the opportunity to go through S/L William Pentlands log book looking for information on his time with 440 Sqd RCAF on Typhoons. He did record ordnance carried and 250, 500 and 1000 pound bombs were duly noted on sorties, so it was common for these pylons to be moved depending on mission.

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by TBC

[Chris Thomas]

8 hours ago, gingerbob said:

Which brings up a question I've been considering asking:

 

On later production/mod aircraft, and in this case I guess we're talking about "big tail" 4-bladed ones, did Typhoon wings have the same mount holes, etc, to receive either RP or bomb pylons (or a combination)?  That is, was the wing ready for either ("Universal"), or was it more particular than that?  I know I've seen some photos that show small holes where rocket mounts could be fitted, but don't know if that's "standard" or less general than that.

 

bob

RP fittings were introduced on the production line early in 1944, near the beginning of the MN-serial range and before the 4-blade prop and large tailplane were introduced.  Production Typhoons had been fitted as bombers since early summer 1943.  So all the 4-bladers could be swapped from bombs to RP and vice versa with relative ease.  What was still visible under the wing would entail a long trawl through photos that I can't do at the moment.  Were the RP fittings covered, for example?  

 

There is that well-known photo of JR128 (still wearing 'HF-L' from its previous owners) banking away from the camera and showing resprayed areas, including RP fittings.  But this was a Hawker and were the fittings, taken to show the modification work they were carrying out at the time, so the wing might have been left in a condition to show what had been done.  Just a thought.  And another ... maybe the RP fitting holes had covers or were simply taped over on bomber Typhoons.

7 hours ago, TBC said:

Be aware that when mounting bombs, the 1,000lb bombs used a different pylon attachment point than 250 and 500 pounders, which both used the same. Can post pics later but someone will no doubt beat me to it. Pics attached now.

 

First, the inner-most pylon attachment point for the lighter bombs-a 500-pounder in this case.

 

 

 

 

 

Below is a 1000-pounder being loaded and its respective location. And if you look just inboard you can see the attachment point for the location seen above. Many years ago I had the opportunity to go through S/L William Pentlands log book looking for information on his time with 440 Sqd RCAF on Typhoons. He did record ordnance carried and 250, 500 and 1000 pound bombs were duly noted on sorties, so it was common for these pylons to be moved depending on mission.

 

The '1,000-lb bomb carrier' was introduced in April 1944. It was fitted, rather surprisingly, further outboard than the original box-varrier; this was to take advantage of a stronger location in the wing structure.

 

 I have photos which show it in use with 500-pounders as well, so I do not think there was any need to change back to the earlier carrier when using smaller bombs.  Long range tanks come into this equation too but they continued to use in the same location as for the original bomb carrier.

CT

[gingerbob]

Agreed, if a new pylon location could carry 1000 lbs, why would you need to revert to the earlier location to carry a lighter bomb?  But are you implying, Chris, that to use the long range tank they had to revert to the inboard pylon location?

 

I suppose the answer is in the tank "setup".  I imagined a pylon as on P-47 or P-51, that could take either tanks or bombs, but I guess the mount was part of the tank structure (perhaps not the right choice of word) on the Typhoon.

[Work In Progress]

It might just be that the outer pylon location wasn't plumbed for fuel

[gingerbob]

Right, but it seems rather silly to have to remove one pylon in order to attach another pylon with the fuel tank, then after that sortie put the bomb pylon back on.  I suppose it is a legacy of the gradual evolution of such things, rather than Mr. Camm or some whiz at the Air Min saying, "Look, in the future we'll need the flexibility of carrying bombs and such, and sometimes extra fuel.  Let's provide for that efficiently." 

[Selwyn]

5 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

Right, but it seems rather silly to have to remove one pylon in order to attach another pylon with the fuel tank, then after that sortie put the bomb pylon back on.  I suppose it is a legacy of the gradual evolution of such things, rather than Mr. Camm or some whiz at the Air Min saying, "Look, in the future we'll need the flexibility of carrying bombs and such, and sometimes extra fuel.  Let's provide for that efficiently." 

Go down to RAF Coningsby right now. On the current Typhoon jet you have to remove the wing or centre fuselage  stores pylon to fit a drop tank, which has an integral pylon, so seventy years down the line nothing changes! 

 

Selwyn

[dalea]

Actually, I did rather fancy using the Valiant Wings 1,000 pdrs.. Can use the kit ones instead,