Sutton harness confusion

[Chuck1945]

This picture of the Kits-World 3D printed decal set for Spitfire and Hurricane harness has me confused. I don’t really understand the way they hook up, and this has me bewildered. I want to use this on the Airfix Spitfire Vc, but how...

I’m confused. Thinking A is one part with either C or D1/D2 being the other part but no idea which is correct and if C or D goes over or under A. B I’m guessing is the part that goes back into the fuselage and does E enter into the discussion at all?

[fishplanebeer]

I also have this set and am equally bewildered as it is far more complex than the equivalent Super Fabric set from Eduard (early war) which I also have but is no longer available for some reason.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Ps. what is the best colour to use for the seat itself?

[Troy Smith]

9 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

Ps. what is the best colour to use for the seat itself?

depends on the plane.

Early Spitfires had a metal seat, usually grey-green,  early you then get the phenolic resin seats, which are brick red to brown. 

see here, and read the links

Hurricane seats are painted aluminium until about 1943.

 

Colin, the site search isn't great,  but you can search the site via google very effectively, and fast.   the above and more was from this search "britmodeller spitfire seats" 

Note there is a page of hits at least.   

the reason I have this on my sig "Britmodeller, at it's best I like to sum up as answering questions you didn't know you needed to ask."  is there is a lot of information been posted here over the years,  and  the same questions get asked again and again, often because the site search isn't great.   

I have the advantage of having seen many of these questions get asked, so at least know that they have, and easier to find,  but having a trawl can often turn up, well, " answering questions you didn't know you needed to ask."   

Really not having a go, but being able to search here well is an amazing research tool,  I know you are reasonably new as a frequent poster,  this is one of the best places online for your areas of interest,  and a browse through a variety of threads will turn up some new bits every time.   

The amount I have learned in my time here is staggering, I sometimes find old posts of mine and see info gaps that have since been filled.   

 

HTH

[Chuck1945]

1 hour ago, fishplanebeer said:

...

Ps. what is the best colour to use for the seat itself?

I’m using Tamiya Hull Red for the seat, I think it is a little too dark and brown, but I’m too lazy to make a custom mix😛

[Ray_W]

If I was installing the Kits-World set I would do as follows.

 

The following sketch is an early Sutton installation. I would make a couple of changes for a Mk. Vc being (1) select and feed part "C" through the rear seat slot not over the seat. Although the jury is still out on this. Your call. In 1/72 probably easier as shown, it attaches at the rear lower seat frame ahead of the armour plate (2) select the un-numbered thigh straps and move the attachment points to the rear of seat and not slotted through starboard seat side. Straps went from leg/thigh straps to closer to the hips. 

 

 

So, use part "C" first and loop as required. Use "A" to over lay "C" as shown. Add the small belt tabs. The assembled belts can just lay down the front of the seat. Not pinned as shown. Part "A" goes through the head rest armour to be attached to restraining cables. The K-W cable attachment representation seems a bit strange for a Spitfire and should look more like the following image. See top left hand attachment in this drawing.  I would remove the ring and use some stretched sprue for the cables (I do model in 1/48 though)

 

 

Select some thigh straps, one for each side, and attach to the rear lower part of the seat, as discussed previously, and loop over side to lay in the bucket.

 

There is also no representation of the retaining pin "safety pin" although probably not much of a worry in 1/72.

 

HTH

Ray

 

 

[FinnAndersen]

The genius part of the Sutton harness was the ability to lean forward, while being held firmly to the seat. This is why part C, the "Y" strap, in Rays drawing feed down the back and through the seat and not over.

 

It's about the first time we see a usable illustration of the Sutton harness, so many thanks to @Ray_W

 

/Finn

 

[Ray_W]

3 minutes ago, FinnAndersen said:

Rays drawing

 

Hi Finn,

It is someone else's drawing that I have seen in a few places on the net and like it for its clarity. I do not know who was the original artist. I did add the text describing my ideas on how to use K-W 3D printed harness.

Ray

[dov]

Can anybody tell me:

The seat at Spitfire Mk.IX  MH434 I saw in Duxford some years ago had a black seat cushion at the back.

Was this standard or a present day convenience?

Happy modelling

[FinnAndersen]

1 hour ago, dov said:

Can anybody tell me:

The seat at Spitfire Mk.IX  MH434 I saw in Duxford some years ago had a black seat cushion at the back.

Was this standard or a present day convenience?

Happy modelling

It was standard with the resin seat.

 

/Finn

[Chuck1945]

Wow, those drawings really helped. I think I finally understand how the harness was installed. The part going down behind the seat never made sense before. Thanks again Ray

[fishplanebeer]

I can now see that the lap/thigh straps are anchored at the base of the seat but exactly where is the 'Y' strap, which loops down the back of the seat,  actually anchored I wonder? From the letter C on the first diagram the note says that it runs down the front of the seat back but it would make more sense to loop over and run down the back (as shown) and then be anchored at some point at the base of the seat - or am I misunderstanding something possibly?

 

As for the colour of the seat thanks for highlighting how best to search the forum via Google in future as I've previously tried the forum search facility and not found it particularly useful if I'm being honest. As mine will be a Spitfire IIa then it's possible that it could be the metal interior green or the red resin type seat.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Ray_W]

7 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

From the letter C on the first diagram the note says that it runs down the front of the seat back but it would make more sense to loop over and run down the back (as shown) and then be anchored at some point at the base of the seat - or am I misunderstanding something possibly?

Herein lies the debate. If you search this subject you will find the debate and various images claimed to be in support of "over the seat" and "through the seat" and the latter's argument of being able to bend forward when loosening the tension on the shoulder straps. I am yet to see compelling evidence either way. The confusion could also be exasperated by local pilot preferences.

 

What is not in debate is the attachment point on the lower tubular cross-member behind the seat. Shown here on the Spitfire Mk. I seat GA as assembly "C". Note this is the early seat with forward attachment of the the thigh straps.

 

 

Edgar use to use the above drawing to promote the over the seat argument. I think it is not clear. Could also show in front of the seat back.

 

An argument that may of supported Edgar, is the potential damage to the resin seat from the harness attachment having to kink through the seat hole. The harness connection (item 277). This view shows the proximity of the attachment cable to the harness end. I'd suggest smooth entry and reinforcement would be needed with the resin bonded seats to allow a more direct passage to the attachment point. The following drawing does show the hole as a broken line behind the belt suggesting belt in front, then again all the attachment assembly is not shown with broken lines once through the hole. 

 

 

My own position is to err on the side of through the seat for early metal or Mk. V and later and over the seat for Mk.I/II resin bonded paper seats. Still a modeller's call and difficult for anyone to say you're wrong. 

 

Ray

 

 

[FinnAndersen]

You would not be able to lean forward if the "Y" strap went over the seat, defying the purpose of the "Y" part.

 

I believe that the harness was designed to have the lower straps anchored at point "B". At some point it was realised that if you moved the anchor point to a place further back, you could do away with the "Y" strap and arrived at the kind of belt used since. 

 

/Finn

[Ray_W]

1 hour ago, FinnAndersen said:

I believe that the harness was designed to have the lower straps anchored at point "B".

Yes, also seen this put forward.

 

A good coverage of the main points of the debate was on Hyperscale https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/spitfires-and-sutton-harnesses-t172581.html But, there are many many more. Spitfire Site et al. Excellent discussions here on BM - search Spitfire Sutton Harness Britmodeller. You will also find lap strap attachment points discussion through the life of the Spitfire and the various proposed locations and supporting evidence or lack thereof. And, all still being debated. 

 

In the end you come out of this having to form your own opinion. Sadly, no WW2 photographer was thinking "I am sure modeller's in 2020's will want to know how the Sutton harness was fitted in the early Spitfire variants. I must take more photographs." 🙂 

 

Reality is for an open cockpit you should normally show the right strap hanging out of the cockpit over the sidewall, left hand strap tucked back over the armour plate, lap straps off the seat left and right all to keep the seat clear for the pilot. I tried to portray it this way with my 1/48 RAAF Vc. (Not easy with vinyl coated steel and no back detail). I put the lap belts with early forward mounting. Left harness flipped back over the seat Clive Caldwell style. Back Y through the hole.

 

 

 

Ray

[fishplanebeer]

Aha, things are now beginning to make a lot more sense to me so many thanks for the clarification.

 

Not entirely sure about the anchor point for the main harness straps that feed through the armour plate/head rest but as I will be using decals (either the Eduard Super Fabric or Kits World) and not a PE set this is not an issue.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Ray_W]

6 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

Not entirely sure about the anchor point for the main harness straps that feed through the armour plate/head rest

 

Colin,

 

Good starting point. http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/the-sutton-harness-on-the-spitfire.html

 

Ray

[fishplanebeer]

Ray,

 

That's exactly what I was after, thank you.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Olmec Head]

Having re-read Edgar' s contribution to this debate in the Britmodeller threads above and also the Hyperscale thread link provided by Ray_W, I feel that his view was:

 

 

'This is how Cross & Scarborough illustrated the harness , in the Patrick Stephens book on the 1/24 Airfix kit, after inspecting the IWM's Mk.I R6915. They said that it is black, which indicates an early metal seat, and do not show a slot, which matches a couple of drawings, in Hendon, which show the early seat as having a plain back, and the slot being cut through the armour plating.
I'm not naive enough to say that any set-up was right for all 22,000 airframes, and I'm still researching (hence my discovery of the QL in the "RV" Marks in 1945,) but, so far, all indicators are that the harness went over the back, up to the Mark VI, and could have gone through the back, from about 1944, but evidence is still coming to light'.

 

(Edgar Brooks Hyperscale thread 2011)

 

I am presuming that the picture referred to in the above quote is the same as Ray_W's (annoyingly the link has gone in the original thread): 

 

 

The lack of slot in the back of the seat in early metal Spitfire seats referred to by Edgar would also say that the Sutton 'Y' harness went over the back.  That said, the original metal seat of P9374 (built early 1940) had a back slot.  But it also had back armour and I think Edgar saw the slot as being put in to help in moving the seat with the armour attached (although I could be misquoting him).

Also, I have wondered how much gap was there between the armour plate and the seat, was it sufficient for the harness to run down between the seat and the armour to the anchor point. 

 

This metal seat from my earlier post isn't very helpful as the seat is too banged about but I thought I would redo it:

 

The cutout in the leather back could be for the seat slot or it could just be the standard seatback cushion pattern.

 

And this early seat again from several Britmodeller posts is annoying in being photo-ed from the side! But it does show a lack of side cutout.

 

 

I am sadly not practically minded, so I cannot contribute better theoretical ideas on how the harness could work with or without a seat slot, but I thought it useful to re-iterate Edgar's ideas to contribute to the discussion.

[Ray_W]

The thing that convinced me the Y-Harness  was designed to go through the seat slot on the Spitfire, like so many British types, and particularly the early metal seat, is the photo of K5054's seat following the fatal accident September 4, 1939.

 

 

You can see the lower part of the back harness just peaking through the seat slot and connected to the frame cross member as per the GA drawings. Note this is before armour - K5054 September 1939. 

 

I am not an advocate that the slot was planned as a hand hold at any stage. The metal seat drawings even say it is for the harness "safety belt" even though it would of worked as a convenient hand hold. 

 

 

One day, I might find the resin seat drawing. 

 

Now, whether Edgar was right and the early version of the resin seat was not strong enough, requiring a different harness routing, and whether individual pilot's preferred to loop over the top of the seat is another matter. As to running the Y over the armour plate and down the back without any protection across the top of the armour plate to prevent the harness chaffing I think it is highly unlikely or at best a very short-term solution.

 

I still feel you can be reasonably confident routing the Y harness through the seat back slot.

 

Ray

 

 

[Ivor Ramsden]

The best period photo that I've found is in the Pilot's Notes for the Defiant which clearly shows the "Y" strap passing through the hole in the back of the seat. Whilst it's not an early Spitfire, it is contemporary.

[FinnAndersen]

29 minutes ago, Ivor Ramsden said:

The best period photo that I've found is in the Pilot's Notes for the Defiant which clearly shows the "Y" strap passing through the hole in the back of the seat. Whilst it's not an early Spitfire, it is contemporary.

What about the Hurricane, Gladiator and indeed all other RAF fighters? I always assumed that the Sutton was used universally.

 

/Finn

[Olmec Head]

2 hours ago, Ray_W said:

The thing that convinced me the Y-Harness  was designed to go through the seat slot on the Spitfire, like so many British types, and particularly the early metal seat, is the photo of K5054's seat following the fatal accident September 4, 1939.

 

 

You can see the lower part of the back harness just peaking through the seat slot and connected to the frame cross member as per the GA drawings. Note this is before armour - K5054 September 1939.  I am not an advocate that the slot was planned as a hand hold at any stage. The metal seat drawings even say it is for the harness "safety belt" even though it would of worked as a convenient hand hold. 

 

 

One day, I might find the resin seat drawing. 

 

Now, whether Edgar was right and the early version of the resin seat was not strong enough, requiring a different harness routing, and whether individual pilot's preferred to loop over the top of the seat is another matter. As to running the Y over the armour plate and down the back without any protection across the top of the armour plate to prevent the harness chaffing I think it is highly unlikely or at best a very short-term solution.

 

I still feel you can be reasonably confident routing the Y harness through the seat back slot.

 

Ray

 

 

Thanks Ray, the K5054 photo does seem nearly conclusive (if something can be nearly conclusive) and would show that the seat slot was in place from the earliest Spitfires.  I had a look at the footage on Youtube of the Spitfire 1 Servicing video when the tradesman checks the Sutton Harness, but that didn't have any closeups of the fittings.  It does of course show a hydraulic not manual gear selector viz the debate on Eduard's manual only selector, but that''s another story.

[Ed Russell]

[Ed Russell]

Rear view of Sutton Harness in a CAC Boomerang from the Overhaul and Repair Manual.

 

 

Front view of same

 

[dogsbody]

Carl Vincent would like to add this to the Sutton discussion:

 

Sutton harness – a different Air Force and a different type but, possibly, with some relevance to the discussion in this thread.

The RAF Kittyhawks appear to have had the harness installed after delivery in the UK. As a result, when the first RCAF Kittyhawks – 72 Kittyhawk I’s – were delivered, they only had a very exiguous restraint system so that, until the RCAF could obtain the Sutton harness, not only were acrobatics forbidden but the gun sights had to be removed to prevent facial injuries.

The following photos are extracted from my collection of “Elizaterica” i.e. photographs taken of photos on the archival Kittyhawk files by my wife, Elizabeth, in support of my Kittyhawk research. Apart from the photos I have nothing presently to contribute.

 

1a,b,c.   Original Sutton harness photos.

 

 

 

 

 

2a,b.      Modification devised by 118 (F) – the first RCAF Kittyhawk squadron – to lengthen the straps necessary because of the parachute and dinghy.

 

 

 

 

3a,b.      The standard parachute and dinghy setup used by the RCAF in the Kittyhawk I’s. Apparently the Americans in the Aleutians were much impressed by this arrangement.

 

 

 

 

4a,b.      The harness as fitted to the plywood pilot’s seat in the Kittyhawk IV.

 

 

 

 

 

Carl

 

 

 

 

 

Chris, for Carl