Bad news- for the wallet?

[tonyot]

Hiya Troy,

Thanks ever so much for providing those `Universal' wing photos which came at just the right time for me as I was about to start painting my models! I`ll fill in the Mk.IIc style panels on the wings and rescribe the smaller panel for the Browning along with the long one behind it, plus I`ll add a strip of plastic card, like you say its quite easy to do and a Mk.IV can be easily built from a Mk.IIc. Just as easily the AZ Model Mk.IV can be built as a Mk.IIc if you have the cannons from the Academy kit in your spares box and can `fabricate' the bulges on the wings.

Speaking of wings, I had always thought that the Mk.IV & Mk.IId had a bulge on the wing near to the trailing edge and that both versions had `converted' Mk.IIc type wings with similar panel lines............but you`ve proved this wrong with the Mk.IV.....who knows about the Mk.IId? I`d still plump for Mk.IIc style panels for the Mk.IId, maybe with one of the longer rear panels covered over, but that is just a hunch? Maybe the bulge near the trailing edge was only fitted to earlier Mk.IV`s or those fitted with 40mm cannons and if so maybe this was an alternative cover for the long removable panel behind the main gun access panel? Does that make sense..??

Walrus....no the interior is painted mosrtly in RAF Interior Gray Green, I`ve just added a `sooty' wash (sent it to a Welsh coal mine!) to the interior to bring out the detail and the black paint you can see is for the instrument panel coaming cover!

All the best

Tony O

Edited November 24, 2010 by tonyot

[Troy Smith]

Thanks ever so much for providing those `Universal' wing photos which came at just the right time for me as I was about to start painting my models! I`ll fill in the Mk.IIc style panels on the wings and rescribe the smaller panel for the Browning along with the long one behind it, plus I`ll add a strip of plastic card, like you say its quite easy to do and a Mk.IV can be easily built from a Mk.IIc. Just as easily the AZ Model Mk.IV can be built as a Mk.IIc if you have the cannons from the Academy kit in your spares box and can `fabricate' the bulges on the wings.

The bulges would be quite hard I think.

Speaking of wings, I had always thought that the Mk.IV & Mk.IId had a bulge on the wing near to the trailing edge and that both versions had `converted' Mk.IIc type wings with similar panel lines............but you`ve proved this wrong with the Mk.IV.....who knows about the Mk.IId? I`d still plump for Mk.IIc style panels for the Mk.IId, maybe with one of the longer rear panels covered over, but that is just a hunch? Maybe the bulge near the trailing edge was only fitted to earlier Mk.IV`s or those fitted with 40mm cannons and if so maybe this was an alternative cover for the long removable panel behind the main gun access panel? Does that make sense..??

There is a parallel thread here in the one about the units that used the Mk IV - here http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59225

Graham Boak makes some good points, and he has a better library. Presuming that the Belgrade MK IV is original (the B'Ham one is hung from the bloomin' ceiling!) and I tend to think it is the original layout unless the wing has been reskinned.

Pics of the upper wing are hard to find, but in 'Hurricane At War' there are some pics of mostly IID's, one of which shows a rear view of the plane up on the butts with the cannon fairings off.

No bulges are visible, but you can clearly see the cannon ammo drums inside the wing. (I'll scan pic when I get chance, can't scan here) but I can't see any reason for the bulges. What this does show is that the rectangular panel in the pic below would be removed to allow the ammo drum into the wing.

One point, apparently the IID had 30 rounds per gun, while the MKIV had capacity for 60 rounds per gun, implying a bigger magazine, or a revised feed system with an ammo box in the wing, which only needed the larger outboard panel.(as in the above photos) the smaller rear panel is to access the 40 mm cannon breech I believe.

Possibly the IID would still have both or the larger IIC type hatches to allow the ammo drum to be fitted from above?

Can someone check the Hurricane MkII manual if they have this? I know there are some details on this in the manual.

i'll post this in the other MkIV thread as well.

cheers

T

[Test Graham]

I have the Mk.II manual in front of me. There is a small appendix dealing with the Mk.IID and Mk.IV. It is not ideal for modellers, at least without a certain amount of interpretation. Most of the text deals with the fitting and removal of the two different 40mm guns. There is nothing on arming the machine gun, on the armour fitted, or on the rockets. I believe that most of the relevant armament details (all variants) was provided in a different manual.

The Vickers gun installation is labelled Mk.IID and Mk.IV: it has D-shaped access doors top and bottom aft of the rear spar, but the lower hatch is for the Mk.IID and early Mk.IV only. Magazine access is in the side of the gun fairing.

The Rolls Royce gun installation is labelled Mk.IID and early Mk.IV only. It has a similar (but with a different part number) door above the wing - this door has a blister - but the lower door is not fitted. The magazine is installed via this lower door but accessed for loading ammunition through that in the upper wing. I suspect this means that the lower door cannot be refitted with the gun in place. The RR gun does not have a fairing. Between the rear spar and the subspar are two larger rectangular cover plates, not required on the Vickers installation. These are shown as being present but not used on the Vickers installation. These are used to access the more forward mounting of the RR gun.

I have seen drawings of the Mk.IID wing which from memory match these partial drawings in the manual. I can't put my hands on the at the moment.

Comparing the drawings with the Belgrade photos, I'd say that the aft hatch matches, but the forward hatch is the wrong size, too far outboard and single.

[Test Graham]

I've now found two different plans for the Mk.IV wing.

One in an old Zlinek (Vol III No.1), not as fully detailed as perhaps I'd like but showing the single aft access hatch and two access panels forward of the rear spar. Just like the Mk.IIc in that sense, but with a single panel aft and the blisters are not shown. The leading edge of the wing does not appear to have the gun access panels for the 20mm cannon, but it's a bit too vague to press the point.

The other is in Marek Rhys's Hurricane from MMR, and also in rather fuller representation in his AJ Press Monografie Lotnicze 53: Hurricane part 3. He appears to have simply copied the Mk.IIc wing, blisters, double rear access panels and all. He does present two different leading edges. For the 40mm cannon it has as many leading edge panels as the Mk.IIc, whereas with rockets it has a large single panel inboard, only reaching over the inner rocket pair. Also there is no machine gun - which perhaps does agree with at least one SEAC photo I have often stared at!

I did wonder if the two access panels in the manual diagram should not be taken too literally. The two appear to be the same as the single inboard one on the Mk.II - and the magazine for the Browning sits in just the right place for access by the outer panel. Or perhaps that large underside panel on the Belgrade example? However, the fourth Manual diagram does show the mounting positions for the bomb, and no sign of any panel.

The bomb rack displaces one of the guns in the 4-gun wing - did it also replace those in the Mk.IV? It is difficult to see where the cartridges would eject were the rocket mountings in place. Rhys does not show the bomb or rockets in plan - he does have a "Mk.IIE" which appears to be modified Mk.IID and the Browning does not align with the bomb carrier.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Graham Boak

[Nick Millman]

It is difficult to see where the cartridges would eject were the rocket mountings in place.

20 Sqn records mention that the gun could not be used with the rockets because the plate covered the ejection slot. But for some reason the guns were still installed and armed.

[Ed Russell]

I was looking at the various upper wing pictures and looking at the A-Z kit (which looks like a very nice effort).

I'm still a bit confused - and I think it's all those well-intentioned restoration people that have done it.

What is the externally visible difference between a IId with 40mm cannon and a IV with cannon?

I was thinking the A-Z kit would look nice in 246 IAP markings.

According to Green (1961) the Rolls-Royce BF cannon carried 12 rpg and the Vickers S gun carried 15rpg.

With the indulgence of the moderators I will post this in both Hurricane threads.

[AnonymousFO98]

The extra armour especially to the radiator tub.

The universal wing on the MkIV

IIRC Ed, the differences have already been outlined in the threads if you don't mind trawling through it again.