Selwyn Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Actually Bill, I think they may be standardised in as much as the adaptor rail we're seeing on the Hunter were the same as those used on, for example, the Venom. I'm no Venom expert but I think these were also the "towel rail" rails that Selwyn describes.It's the bolt-on 'hangers' that we seen to be at odds over though as the fittings on the newer rockets certainly appear to be different. !.Look at your picture of the rockets on the zero length stubs on the firefly. 2 Imagine taking off that rocket taking iit to a Hunter aircraft as in the picture 3 That rocket, previously on the Firefly would fit the Hunter rail. The ROCKET Habgar system is standardised! 4 The rocket fitted to the Hunter is a later modification state with the Hangars not bolted on as in the earlier firefly rocket but with them built into the rocket motor tube structure. 5 This Hunter rocket as it is now would would fit on the firefly! the Hangar system is standardised. 6. If you wanted to fit a second tier on the Hunter you would have to fit a bolt on brackiet to the hunter rocket. because as you can see it does not have built in bottom hangers. This additional (optional) hangar this si the same as your brackets fitted to the firefly rocket. tts design never changed in the operatuional lifetime of the 3" RP. After WW2 they had thousands of these of brackets in stock and they basically used them up rather than design a new one! Selwyn (thirty two years in the aircraft weapon business and apparently knows nothing about rockets) Edited October 24, 2011 by Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenMG Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Selwyn, you stated, referring to Edgars diagrams, that "this image is the same for all aircraft that carried 3" Rockets". You also stated that "The only major change in 3" rocket mountings was made when they moved from rail launched (WW2 ish) to zero length in the early 1950's? the standard hanger system remained the same until the 3" was out of use." You later said "Sometime in the 50’s the 3” RP was redesigned with the zero length launch brackets built into the motor rather than a separate bolt on bracket, and with smaller fins." and "The rocket fitted to the Hunter is a later modification state with the Hangars not bolted on as in the earlier firefly rocket but with them built into the rocket motor tube structure" thereby contradicting yourself and muddying the waters considerably. You also said "My point is that the bracket shown in Edgars drawing was used all the way from the introduction of the Zero length launchers to the end of 3” Rocket use." and seem to repeat the point when you say, in point 6 above, that "If you wanted to fit a second tier on the Hunter you would have to fit a bolt on brackiet to the hunter rocket. because as you can see it does not have built in bottom hangers. This additional (optional) hangar this si the same as your brackets fitted to the firefly rocket. tts design never changed in the operatuional lifetime of the 3inch RP" Well, I'm sorry but I just don't believe that. The 2 Hunter photos I posted plainly show 2 tiers on a Hunter. They do not have the "Edgar" brackets anywhere on them. Indeed the rocket illustrated in the colour photo clearly has fittings built in to it onto which another tier can be hung, i.e. "bottom hangers", without the need for Edgar's bolt on brackets. These, as I said before, are the forward facing 'prong' below and to the rear of the head (which engages with the upper fitting on the rocket below), and between the fins (silouetted by the airman's hand) which engages with the rear of the rocket below. This is illustrated by the photo of the 2 tiers. There are clearly no additional brackets there. So, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one because we are going round in circles. I'll stick with what I can clearly see in the many photos on the Radfan site. I'm out. StephenMG (forty-five years of having eyes in the front of my head) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 !.Look at your picture of the rockets on the zero length stubs on the firefly.2 Imagine taking off that rocket taking iit to a Hunter aircraft as in the picture 3 That rocket, previously on the Firefly would fit the Hunter rail. The ROCKET Habgar system is standardised! 4 The rocket fitted to the Hunter is a later modification state with the Hangars not bolted on as in the earlier firefly rocket but with them built into the rocket motor tube structure. 5 This Hunter rocket as it is now would would fit on the firefly! the Hangar system is standardised. 6. If you wanted to fit a second tier on the Hunter you would have to fit a bolt on brackiet to the hunter rocket. because as you can see it does not have built in bottom hangers. This additional (optional) hangar this si the same as your brackets fitted to the firefly rocket. tts design never changed in the operatuional lifetime of the 3" RP. After WW2 they had thousands of these of brackets in stock and they basically used them up rather than design a new one! Selwyn (thirty two years in the aircraft weapon business and apparently knows nothing about rockets) Selwyn, All I can say is simply this: You stated that the Hunter used the system as described in Edgar's post i.e that the lower RP was attached to the upper RP by means of a coach-bolted attachment. You stated that the Hunter did not use a rail as the 'coach-bolt" system was standardised. You said that the Hunter never used a rail!! Stephen has posted photo's where this 'coach-bolt" arrangement is noticeable by its absence on the Hunter!! Not the best photo in the world granted but Its pretty clear that the lower rocket was attached to the upper rocket by this 'lug" arrangment. Later RPs seem to have an elaborate triangular arrangement - clearly NOT the "coach-bolt" brackets! The Hunters RP is fits into the pronged arrangement at the front of the rocket rail - exactly as described by Stephen earlier. Its nothing like the fit on the Firefly - not by any stretch of the imagination! The rockets on the Hunters are not the same as the Firefly! A bit contentious I know - given your statement that the 3" rockets didn't change in their lifetime - but there you have it. The Fireflys RPs are clearly bolted to the pylon stubs. Those on the Hunter have a strange double triangular fitting. These are being loaded onto the front of the rail. These look as if they are actually part of the RP!!! What are they then Selwyn and where would the coach-bolt brackets fit on that? Your knowledge of the weapons business is clear - no-ones disputing that - but on this one Selwyn, Sorry!! But I'm afraid you have got it wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Selwyn, All I can say is simply this: You stated that the Hunter used the system as described in Edgar's post i.e that the lower RP was attached to the upper RP by means of a coach-bolted attachment. You stated that the Hunter did not use a rail as the 'coach-bolt" system was standardised. You said that the Hunter never used a rail!! Stephen has posted photo's where this 'coach-bolt" arrangement is noticeable by its absence on the Hunter!! Not the best photo in the world granted but Its pretty clear that the lower rocket was attached to the upper rocket by this 'lug" arrangment. Later RPs seem to have an elaborate triangular arrangement - clearly NOT the "coach-bolt" brackets! The Hunters RP is fits into the pronged arrangement at the front of the rocket rail - exactly as described by Stephen earlier. Its nothing like the fit on the Firefly - not by any stretch of the imagination! The rockets on the Hunters are not the same as the Firefly! A bit contentious I know - given your statement that the 3" rockets didn't change in their lifetime - but there you have it. The Fireflys RPs are clearly bolted to the pylon stubs. Those on the Hunter have a strange double triangular fitting. These are being loaded onto the front of the rail. These look as if they are actually part of the RP!!! What are they then Selwyn and where would the coach-bolt brackets fit on that? Your knowledge of the weapons business is clear - no-ones disputing that - but on this one Selwyn, Sorry!! But I'm afraid you have got it wrong! Selwyn, All I can say is simply this: You stated that the Hunter used the system as described in Edgar's post i.e that the lower RP was attached to the upper RP by means of a coach-bolted attachment. You stated that the Hunter did not use a rail as the 'coach-bolt" system was standardised. You said that the Hunter never used a rail!! A The Hunter Did not use a rail what you see "The Towel rail" is a structural bar. the rocket did not run down this rail when launched off a Hunter! Stephen has posted photo's where this 'coach-bolt" arrangement is noticeable by its absence on the Hunter!! Not the best photo in the world granted but Its pretty clear that the lower rocket was attached to the upper rocket by this 'lug" arrangment. Later RPs seem to have an elaborate triangular arrangement - clearly NOT the "coach-bolt" brackets! The Hunters RP is fits into the pronged arrangement at the front of the rocket rail - exactly as described by Stephen earlier. Its nothing like the fit on the Firefly - not by any stretch of the imagination! A. I know it looks different on the pictures but I assure you it is the same attachment! Stephens picture is unclear. and a shot from a better angle would show this. The rockets on the Hunters are not the same as the Firefly A bit contentious I know - given your statement that the 3" rockets didn't change in their lifetime - but there you have it. The Fireflys RPs are clearly bolted to the pylon stubs. Those on the Hunter have a strange double triangular fitting. These are being loaded onto the front of the rail. These look as if they are actually part of the RP!!! What are they then Selwyn and where would the coach-bolt brackets fit on that? A "The rockets on the Hunters are not the same as the Firefly" Yes I know! I stated as such in in my post. but the firefly rockets would fit on the Hunter! The Hunter rocket motor is a later Mod standard with integral hangars. but the means of suspension and launch of both rockets are the same. A. The Fireflys RPs are clearly bolted to the pylon stubs. No they are not! if they were they would not come off the mounts! the bolts you see are holding the mounting onto the stub.the RP's are held in place by a shearwire arrangement the same as the Hunter. You do not seem to appreciate that the rocket only has to move forward about 2" to be free of the aircraft mounting on both aircraft. it is a zero length system. Selwyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Selwyn, All I can say is simply this: You stated that the Hunter used the system as described in Edgar's post i.e that the lower RP was attached to the upper RP by means of a coach-bolted attachment. You stated that the Hunter did not use a rail as the 'coach-bolt" system was standardised. You said that the Hunter never used a rail!! A The Hunter Did not use a rail what you see "The Towel rail" is a structural bar. the rocket did not run down this rail when launched off a Hunter! Stephen has posted photo's where this 'coach-bolt" arrangement is noticeable by its absence on the Hunter!! Not the best photo in the world granted but Its pretty clear that the lower rocket was attached to the upper rocket by this 'lug" arrangment. Later RPs seem to have an elaborate triangular arrangement - clearly NOT the "coach-bolt" brackets! The Hunters RP is fits into the pronged arrangement at the front of the rocket rail - exactly as described by Stephen earlier. Its nothing like the fit on the Firefly - not by any stretch of the imagination! A. I know it looks different on the pictures but I assure you it is the same attachment! Stephens picture is unclear. and a shot from a better angle would show this. The rockets on the Hunters are not the same as the Firefly A bit contentious I know - given your statement that the 3" rockets didn't change in their lifetime - but there you have it. The Fireflys RPs are clearly bolted to the pylon stubs. Those on the Hunter have a strange double triangular fitting. These are being loaded onto the front of the rail. These look as if they are actually part of the RP!!! What are they then Selwyn and where would the coach-bolt brackets fit on that? A "The rockets on the Hunters are not the same as the Firefly" Yes I know! I stated as such in in my post. but the firefly rockets would fit on the Hunter! The Hunter rocket motor is a later Mod standard with integral hangars. but the means of suspension and launch of both rockets are the same. A. The Fireflys RPs are clearly bolted to the pylon stubs. No they are not! if they were they would not come off the mounts! the bolts you see are holding the mounting onto the stub.the RP's are held in place by a shearwire arrangement the same as the Hunter. You do not seem to appreciate that the rocket only has to move forward about 2" to be free of the aircraft mounting on both aircraft. it is a zero length system. Selwyn. Selwyn, You can chop and change your story as much as you want- BUT you have clearly stated certain things and when challenged you continue to contradict your self. The plain facts are simple and this is the one that you are continually chosing to ignore: The Hunter RPs are different! Their mounting is DIFFERENT. They DO NOT use the system that you advocated earlier. Now, Like Stephen , and I daresay a few others I'm getting a bit fed up with this thread. The facts are there for all to see - so I'm outta here too..... Edited October 25, 2011 by Bill Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev67 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 eh eh calm down !!!!!!! as they say in Liverpool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy Posted October 25, 2011 Author Share Posted October 25, 2011 I've just come into this thread to catch up - crickey!. Thanks for everybody's input on this fascinating subject. I've ordered a single set from MDC. Thanks all. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Selwyn, You can chop and change your story as much as you want- BUT you have clearly stated certain things and when challenged you continue to contradict your self. The plain facts are simple and this is the one that you are continually chosing to ignore: The Hunter RPs are different! Their mounting is DIFFERENT. They DO NOT use the system that you advocated earlier. Now, Like Stephen , and I daresay a few others I'm getting a bit fed up with this thread. The facts are there for all to see - so I'm outta here too..... Sorry bill you are wrong, We will have to agree to disagree! Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonR Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Wish my dad was still here, would have loved this debate, he spent years fiddling around with those rockets!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy Posted October 25, 2011 Author Share Posted October 25, 2011 Wish my dad was still here, would have loved this debate, he spent years fiddling around with those rockets!! Its my grandad for me, he's in one of the 43 Sqn photo's (Armourer) Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonR Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Its my grandad for me, he's in one of the 43 Sqn photo's (Armourer)Steve. Great photo, sure I have seen that somewhere before, maybe in the book 'The Hunter story'. My dad did much of his later RAF service as an armourer on Hunters in Germany & the UK, he didn't go to the middle east though! Cheers Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I know it going over old ground here, but I think his pic of a 20 Sqn FGA9 shows better how the RP arrangement on the Hunter differs from that described. There's no saddle here holding the upper and lower rockets together. They top rocket seems to be hooked to the rail (sorry- metally bar thing) and then the lower rocket is then hooked into the bracket. Clearly looking at this pic there was also a couple of different types of RP attachments used, over and above the saddles in Edgars drawings........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The rails carried by the Hunters were known as the standard service Mk.12 (rocket)Rail. My brackets. Rockets using this system carried their own prong and socket to allow tiered suspension. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenMG Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Rockets using this system carried their own prong and socket to allow tiered suspension. Thank you John. Exactly what I was trying to describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Thank you John. Exactly what I was trying to describe. Amen!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The rails carried by the Hunters were known as the standard service Mk.12 (rocket)Rail. My brackets. Rockets using this system carried their own prong and socket to allow tiered suspension.John Hi John, Thanks for clarifying this. Do you have any diagrams or pic's? I've searched high and low for decent pic's...I can vaguely work out how the prong and socket worked, but I was wondering what the triangular plates covering the prongs were. There certainly seems to be a variety here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Cooper Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I'd like to offer my 'special thanks' to all the contributions here. Regardless of some disagreement, this is a very valuable thread - not only for modelers, but researchers like me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 so, just so I am clear..... Each rocket has a triangular shaped fairing top and bottom, staggered, behind the warhead. The upper one has the slope facing forwards, and it rearward face was two holes, while the under fairing has the slope facing rearwards, and in its now-forward-facing flat face has two prongs. When mated, the prongs locate into the holes, and the distance between the mating faces top and bottom gives the stagger forwards. Yes? So, at the tail end, the stagger must be sufficient for the rear of the lower rockets fins to be in front of the upper rocket fins. There appears to be a little link fitting on the underside of each rocket, maybe a bit forward of the fins, which presumably couples with a C channel fitting or similar which must be on the top surface of each rocket. Then, presumably, there will be a pig tail connection from the wing, or maybe the back end of the mounting rail, into each loaded rocket. I can't make that out in the photos. Am I close? Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenMG Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) Well, this is the way I understand it. When tiered the lower RPs hang further forward than the upper ones, clearly to allow them to depart without taking everything above with them! Therefore the triangular fairings are sloped to account for the stagger and to enable them to brace against the corresponding ones above or below by having their horizontal 'mating faces' line up. So the upper fairing 'leans' backwards (which I think is what you mean by "slope facing forwards") and the lower one 'leans' forward. Between the lower pair of fairings is a single forward-facing 'prong'. Between the upper pair is a fitting with a socket that engages the prong on the Mk.12 rail (if its the top RP in the tier, or the only RP in use) or the prong on the RP above it if it's tiered. Similarly, at the rear of the RP, there is a fitting which allows the rear end of the motor to be mounted on the rail or the RP above it in the tier. As you say, it is staggered so that the fins of the lower RP is in front of those above. As far as the electrical connections are concerned, they're handled within the mountings, i.e. there are no loose 'pig-tails' like we see in the wartime versions. On the Hunter (and presumably other aircraft) the RPs could be fired as a ripple, in which case the whole lot are fired in pairs with a 33 millisecond delay between pairs, or a salvo of 2, 4, 6 or 8 which was selected using a rotary selector switch in the cockpit. Mark Edited June 20, 2014 by StephenMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I'm still looking at all of these photo's and it seems that some RP's on Hunters have the triangular cover to the prongs, and others don't! Confused? You will be!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I'm still looking at all of these photo's and it seems that some RP's on Hunters have the triangular cover to the prongs, and others don't! Confused? You will be!! Bill I think that you are possibly referring to the trials F.Mk.6 XF389 which I believe first carried a full four rail set aloft in August 58. The system was developed and as I recall, the lower set of "triangular covers" hung vertically, whereas the upper pair were angled out at 45 degrees. It might be worth your while asking Venom Vixen if she has any information from the Gannet AP as the installation was very similar although I only ever saw it on Hermes' COD4, XA470, at Luqa, initially four rails but later only two when it started carrying torpedos in the bay. HTH Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 The COD4 could carry rockets and torpedoes? Weird! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The COD4 could carry rockets and torpedoes? Weird! I only ever saw XA470 fitted with the rocket rails carrying a torpedo and that was in March '67. Loading of both was carried out by RAF armourers on a designated pan on the far side of the airfield and both the rockets and torpedos were launched against the islet of Filfla just of the coast. The torpedos were recovered by the boat unit at Kalafrana. The only other Naval type I saw with a similar installation, was a Buccaneer S1 of 801 NAS from HMS Eagle. That had an adapter fitted to the outboard pylon with twin rails integral with the adapter. That was in 1965. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Bill I think that you are possibly referring to the trials F.Mk.6 XF389 which I believe first carried a full four rail set aloft in August 58. The system was developed and as I recall, the lower set of "triangular covers" hung vertically, whereas the upper pair were angled out at 45 degrees. It might be worth your while asking Venom Vixen if she has any information from the Gannet AP as the installation was very similar although I only ever saw it on Hermes' COD4, XA470, at Luqa, initially four rails but later only two when it started carrying torpedos in the bay. HTH Dennis Hi Dennis, I was referring to the difference in these two types of rocket. The former has triangular wedges aft of the head, either side of the prongs, whereas the latter doesn't http://www.radfanhunters.co.uk/Images-43/Loading%2060%20lb%20HE%20rocket_Ksar_1965_WM.jpg http://www.radfanhunters.co.uk/images/Fred%20and%20Larry's%20last%20day-holding%20rocket_Ksar_1963_RD.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vesthepes Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Hi chaps I know this is an old thread, but I thought it would make sense to post my question here... As I am in the process of building an Iraqi Hawker Hunter F.6 I stumbled around this... There is a known photo (can be found on internet) of an early Iraqi Hunter carrying 3 inch rockets. Now I wonder, are those 25lb? 60lb? Can this Aerobonus RAF rockets set be used in this case? http://www.aires.cz/en/product/r-a-f-3-inch-60lb-rockets/3-703/#lightbox/0/ http://www.aires.cz/en/product/r-a-f-3-inch-25lb-rockets/3-702/ thanks in advance, cheers 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