PR Buffalo

[Antoine]

In general in an aircraft with guns and cannons, there is more than one button, but don't know about the buffalo with different sorts of guns.

About the camera, I don't think they always works at the same time.

[LDSModeller]

In general in an aircraft with guns and cannons, there is more than one button, but don't know about the buffalo with different sorts of guns.

About the camera, I don't think they always works at the same time.

Hi Antoine

Apart from the gun charging handles (two on IP, two on starboard side of pilot)

the 4 guns and gun camera are activated by the trigger on the control column.

Looking at the Pilots Notes schematics, I don't think it would be

too difficult for the MU to wire in the camera control to the trigger,

remembering that the for the PR version, the guns and gun camera

would have been removed anyway

Regards

Alan

[Antoine]

Hi, Alan

It'ok as far as you consider that one button command all the camera, and I have doubts about it (and I've already scratched a camera controller...).

[Antoine]

Here's my attempt at scratching an 1/48 F.24, with its controler:

And the installation in the aircraft:

Nothing's finished, I've yet to work with oils and pigments before closing the pit.

[Seahawk]

To reinvigorate this epic thread..

for what it's worth, the artwork in Geoff Thomas' "Eyes for The Phoenix" shows a portside view of W8166. No codes, no fuselage band, undersides pale blue (described in the caption as "equivalent to RAAF Sky Blue FS35550/Methuen 24B3/4"), no mention of any black undersides. Which, apart from the linkage to Australian colours (but NB it says "equivalent to", NOT that it was the RAAF colour), is where we had got to by about post 41. No sign of any external PR-specific mods. Possible new info is that the front half of the spinner is shown in what appears to be "real" Sky (rest black).

[LDSModeller]

From memory, in his Book, "Last Stand Singapore", Graham Clayton

mentions that an order came to paint the half black, then later on it was

changed as it was was not nessecary, so you ended upwith some

Buffaloes with Sky/Black and some with straight Sky

Interestingly enough Graham makes comment that the pilots who flew

the 339E didn't see that point in the ID half and half, as the Anti Aircrft

Gunners shot at anything flying regardless of nationality or Black ID

paint

Regards

Alan

[mhaselden]

The half-and-half underside colour scheme with Sky (Sky Blue?) fuselage band was a locally-developed identification marking but for day fighters only. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that the PR Buffalos would wear it. I very much doubt that the Spinner was completed with the front half in Sky (Sky Blue). Again, this was a day fighter marking (although even this was modified - 21 Sqn aircraft in Nov 41 carried all-Sky spinners) while several combat replacement airframes never carried these various marking modifications. The side-view in "Eyes for the Phoenix" is pure speculation, as is the contention that the undersides were painted something akin to Sky Blue. I think it far more likely that the undersides were the DuPont equivalent for Sky.

Cheers,

Mark

Edited September 1, 2010 by mhaselden

[Antoine]

I'm giving a new life to this topic, as I'll need it soon.

Spent too much time to put my hand back on it!

[ben_m]

A bit of a thread side-track, I'm interested in the discussion about the camera controllers. I have a Type 35 camera controller, and the only controls it has is on/off (for series photography), interval setting (for series), push to take single photo, and push to reset frame counter. As Mark mentions, the pilot couldn't adjust the shutter speed or aperture once in flight. I believe it was the camera fitters that selected the settings according to weather forecasts.

As far as I understand it, the FR Typhoons that used various camera fits in the canon bay had a Type 35 controller, even though they didn't do continuous series photography, and they had the bomb/rocket release button on the control column wired to the single frame option. I have a feeling that the reason the Type 35 was used even when the interval timing was not needed is because it was actually doing a lot more electrical switching that you might imagine, e.g. I think it was controlling the switching of power to the film drive motor (a separate unit from the camera, connected with a flexible drive shaft), as well as triggering the shutter and the shutter re-cocking, and receiving signals that these had completed correctly. One major advantage of this control circuitry being in the cockpit rather than next to the camera is that the pilot can see a red warning light if the shutter and drive cycles were not completed correctly, so he could abort without risking himself for no results.

As to whether one controller could control many cameras, the answer is definitely yes, as the PR Spitfires had up to 5 (e.g. PR Mk. XI with two vertical in fuselage, one oblique above them pointing out at the level of the radio hatch, and two in wing blisters with short 5" lenses), but used only one controller. I would guess that in these cases that the cameras were arranged into groups and there was some sort of switch to choose the active group, but that is just a guess.

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the PR Buffalo configuration.

[mhaselden]

As far as I understand it, the FR Typhoons that used various camera fits in the canon bay had a Type 35 controller, even though they didn't do continuous series photography, and they had the bomb/rocket release button on the control column wired to the single frame option. I have a feeling that the reason the Type 35 was used even when the interval timing was not needed is because it was actually doing a lot more electrical switching that you might imagine, e.g. I think it was controlling the switching of power to the film drive motor (a separate unit from the camera, connected with a flexible drive shaft), as well as triggering the shutter and the shutter re-cocking, and receiving signals that these had completed correctly. One major advantage of this control circuitry being in the cockpit rather than next to the camera is that the pilot can see a red warning light if the shutter and drive cycles were not completed correctly, so he could abort without risking himself for no results.

Interesting info, Ben. In reality, the PR Buffalo pilots pressed on with missions irrespective of whether the cameras were working or not - on occasion they were tasked to fly sorties in weather conditions that were unsuitable for high altitude PR and used the "Mark I Eyeball" to do visual recce (such missions were eventually stomped on by AHQFE as being too risky for the (very) scarce PR airframes).

There may have been a camera controller or there may not. We'll never know for sure. Wareham's account suggests that there was no automatic mechanism for setting the time interval between frames but he could have been mistaken, or there could have been different fittings in the 2 aircraft.

Antoine, going back to your comment that you don't think all 3 cameras would be operated at the same time...In W8166, the 2 cameras located aft of the cockpit would provide lateral overlapping coverage to produce stereo paired imagery. They would absolutely operate together. For the 3rd camera, that would provide a broader area of coverage due to its shorter focal length and would assist the image analyst in locating more precisely the actual position of the imagery from the paired long-focal length cameras. In short, yes I do think all 3 cameras would be operated at the same time.

Since this thread, there has been more discussion about underside colours on RAF Buffalos. There's still no consensus but it seems that they were painted in US paint equivalent to RAF Sky. DuPoint's 71-021 does seem to have a less green shade than what we typically think of as Sky today. It must have been "good enough" for Far East Command to use without seeing fit to overpaint it, despite it being slightly different from the Sky Blue applied to fighter Blenheims and used for the fuselage band on fighter aircraft within the command. I don't think we can say any more on the topic.

Are there any other outstanding questions?

Cheers,

Mark

Edited February 24, 2015 by mhaselden

[Antoine]

Thanks Mark,

Other questions yes, there'll certainly be more, but just let me time to digest once again what's been already said here, and what I've done so far.

[ben_m]

the 2 cameras located aft of the cockpit would provide lateral overlapping coverage to produce stereo paired imagery. They would absolutely operate together.

Just a little correction to this: the overlapping views of split verticals didn't offer stereo viewing capabilities: firstly the overlap was not very great (their aim was to cover a wider track), but more importantly, the separation between the cameras was far too small compared to the distance to the ground; stereo effect was achieved using overlapping images in time series, with the aircraft travelling for a few seconds between exposures (time separation dependent on altitude and focal length in use), aiming to achieve a ~60% overlap with a considerable distance (and therefore difference in perspective) between the two images.

Even if they didn't have a Type 35 in the cockpit (or had one in the cockpit, but not easily accessible) to allow automatic series, there would have to be a control unit somewhere doing an equivalent job: an F.24 couldn't just be wired up to take pictures when a switch was closed.

[mhaselden]

Hi Ben,

Doh! You're right. Stereo is provided along track rather than across it. Shows how long it is since I learned that stuff.

If the F24 needed a camera control unit then it must have been present. As I noted, Charlie Wareham's memory could have been faulty. What we don't know is where it was fitted, although somewhere prominent in the cockpit would be sensible. Given there was no gunsight, perhaps it was mounted on the coaming at the top centre of the instrument panel...but that's just conjecture.

KR
Mark

[Antoine]

Could be, like in a PR spit.

[gingerbob]

As to whether one controller could control many cameras, the answer is definitely yes, as the PR Spitfires had up to 5 (e.g. PR Mk. XI with two vertical in fuselage, one oblique above them pointing out at the level of the radio hatch, and two in wing blisters with short 5" lenses), but used only one controller. I would guess that in these cases that the cameras were arranged into groups and there was some sort of switch to choose the active group, but that is just a guess.

Good guess, Ben, and good information. From the (a) Spit PR Manual:

29. Camera Controls -- All the cameras are controlled by means of a type 35 control on the instrument panel, through a selector box on the port side of the cockpit and a push-button on the throttle lever. The three switches, one for each camera [see note below], permit selection of any combination of cameras. With the "Y" type installation, i.e. one F.52-36 in. camera, only the type 35 control is necessary for its operation.

[Note: the general arrangement is two fanned verticals of various types, sometimes with one oblique in addition. Mention is made of additional wing-mounted cameras (2) but that's a late addition.]

30. Camera heating -- For installations having electric heating, the switch is provided on the aft face of the selector box. For installations having a heater box, see Sect.2.

and a bonus tidbit for Spitfire types:

31. Navigation and identification lamps -- ... Identification lamps are only fitted on Mk.VII and XIII [i.e. not PR.IV/XI] and then only the upward lamp is fitted. This is controlled from a standard signalling switch-box on the starboard side of the cockpit.

bob

Edited February 26, 2015 by gingerbob

[Nick Millman]

Since this thread, there has been more discussion about underside colours on RAF Buffalos. There's still no consensus but it seems that they were painted in US paint equivalent to RAF Sky. DuPoint's 71-021 does seem to have a less green shade than what we typically think of as Sky today. It must have been "good enough" for Far East Command to use without seeing fit to overpaint it, despite it being slightly different from the Sky Blue applied to fighter Blenheims and used for the fuselage band on fighter aircraft within the command. I don't think we can say any more on the topic.

Are there any other outstanding questions?

Cheers,

Mark

Without wishing to be pedantic I think it is probably more true to say that they were painted in a US equivalent to Duck Egg Blue! And unfortunately I don't think we can yet assume with certainty that it was DuPont paint since there were 1,400 paint manufacturers in the USA.

A potential association I explored with Fullers was debunked on the grounds of East Coast vs West Coast location but AFAIK there is still no confirmation of Brewster's actual paint procurement. The only first hand evidence of the under surface colour that I know of is still Bingham Wallis' description of "pale blue" and "sky blue" with the fuselage band a "shade lighter".

Personally I'm not looking for or interested in consensus as in the field of paint colour history so many have already been led up the garden path by the consensus of so few. I'm interested in actual colour data and I don't have a preferred outcome. If that makes me unpopular with some then so be it!

Nick

[dragonlanceHR]

Thank you Nick.

I've seen this c-word appear often on all modeling forums I frequent in the last six months or so, and it's really becoming bothersome.

Vedran

[mhaselden]

Without wishing to be pedantic I think it is probably more true to say that they were painted in a US equivalent to Duck Egg Blue! And unfortunately I don't think we can yet assume with certainty that it was DuPont paint since there were 1,400 paint manufacturers in the USA.

A potential association I explored with Fullers was debunked on the grounds of East Coast vs West Coast location but AFAIK there is still no confirmation of Brewster's actual paint procurement. The only first hand evidence of the under surface colour that I know of is still Bingham Wallis' description of "pale blue" and "sky blue" with the fuselage band a "shade lighter".

Personally I'm not looking for or interested in consensus as in the field of paint colour history so many have already been led up the garden path by the consensus of so few. I'm interested in actual colour data and I don't have a preferred outcome. If that makes me unpopular with some then so be it!

Nick

Nick,

I wasn't assuming DuPont, merely observing that DuPont's equivalent shade is somewhat less green in hue than the Sky with which we are more familiar. For the Buffalo, we know it was painted with something that had been agreed upon as being a "close enough" match to MAP Sky but, clearly, the precise shade is unknown.

To my eye, DuPont's Sky Type S Grey has a more blue tone which may entirely align with Bingham-Wallis's remembrance of the underside colour. Again, I'm not saying Buffalos were painted in DuPont, merely that a shade that is similar to 71-021 might account for the tonal difference we see in photos and for which Bingham-Wallis provided a reasonable explanation.

I have seen another first-person account but my archives are failing me. My memory is telling me the source was Wg Cdr Wright who commanded 21 Sqn prior to Allshorn. Unfortunately, Wright's comments were not helpful - he essentially was commenting on the quality of finishing of the aircraft and that a variety of shades were visible due to weathering and chalking. Obviously, that doesn't refute Bingham-Wallis's testimony, nor am I trying to do so.

Cheers,

Mark

[ReccePhreak]

Talking about bringing a thread back from the dead, I FINALLY got back to working on my conversion of the Tamiya 1/48 Brewster B-339 Buffalo "Pacific Theater", using the decals & resin camera "lenses" from the Special Hobby kit # SH48057.

My question is about the lens cones. The instructions show them sticking out of the fuselage. Is that correct, or were they completely inside, with either camera windows or just holes in the fuselage?

Larry

[Antoine]

Hi Larry, did you opened a WIP thread?

I'm curious to see what you're doing.

Funny, two or three days ago, I was thinking about this thread.

[ReccePhreak]

Hi Antoine,

No I haven't. I originally started the kit a few years ago, and never took any in-progress photos. Plus, I don't currently have any photo hosting site.

I am also such a SLOOOOOOOW builder, and tend to jump from one project to another.

Larry

[ReccePhreak]

Sorry for the double post. 

Edited December 17, 2021 by ReccePhreak
Double post

[mhaselden]

12 hours ago, ReccePhreak said:

Talking about bringing a thread back from the dead, I FINALLY got back to working on my conversion of the Tamiya 1/48 Brewster B-339 Buffalo "Pacific Theater", using the decals & resin camera "lenses" from the Special Hobby kit # SH48057.

My question is about the lens cones. The instructions show them sticking out of the fuselage. Is that correct, or were they completely inside, with either camera windows or just holes in the fuselage?

Larry

 

I doubt that there's a definitive answer to your question....but here's my take on it.  I strongly suspect that the camera lenses were completely inside the fuselage.  It's up to you whether you install camera windows or just leave the holes open....AFAIK, there's no solid evidence either way.

 

Per the image of A51-3 of 1 PRU below, it's clear there's something protruding beneath the fuselage where the cameras were mounted.  I suspect these are dams curved around the openings for the lenses to prevent oil from covering either the camera window (if such were fitted) or the lens itself.

 

 

 

I know that's far from a definitive answer to your questions but it's probably as good as it gets, I'm afraid.  

 

[Antoine]

6 hours ago, ReccePhreak said:

Hi Antoine,

No I haven't. I originally started the kit a few years ago, and never took any in-progress photos. Plus, I don't currently have any photo hosting site.

I am also such a SLOOOOOOOW builder, and tend to jump from one project to another.

Larry

 

Slow builder, mmmh?

Don't know what you mean.

 

Well, I think I'll (re) start by reading again the whole thread, six full pages with my current forum settings....

I then might have a clearer idea about what to do next.

I'll then dig out the kit from the stash.

 

But right now, I'm thinking about setting up a vignette, which I imagine similar to the one I'm currently finalising for ma last build, Eduard's Yak-3.

I didn't opened a thread about it yet, but I'll do so shortly.

Anyway, here's the idea.

 

 

I'll review all my book references, but I think already that it will be simpler, with no hard stand and only lawn (and mud!).

I'll keep the vehicle and gas barrel, though, but any other idea are welcome.

My question is, what vehicle available in 1/48 scale will be fine for a Singapore 1941 vignette?

So far I have only one in the stash, a Tilly, but I'm not sure it was available at this time in the Far East, or even elsewhere.

 

 

 

Hey, wait, I've two. At least if an universal carrier is really an option.

 

 

 

 

I'll also have to find some barrels, or jerrycans, and at least a pilot standing in his tropical shirt and short.

[Selwyn]

The Tamiya Austin  tilly was a model that was never used by the RAF, The RAF tillys were all made by the standard company. the RAF markings in the kit depict a highly innacurate preserved vehicle scheme.

 

Selwyn