TacR Hurricane Mk.I sources

[dragonlanceHR]

Hi folks!

The nice ARK 1/48 Hurricane Mk.I finally arrived, looking much better than in online reviews (the scribing is not so trenchy). Nose bulges look beter than Hasegawas, and also the fabric is better represented.

The reason I bought it, apart from SeaHarricane underside and hook, is the underside photo camera housing. I thought I could use it for Mk.II, but if fits the drawings of TacR Mk.I in AJ-Press monograph.

So, where could I find some photos/codes of TacR Mk.I's?

TIA

Vedran

Edited January 10, 2010 by dragonlanceHR

[Test Graham]

There is information in Eyes Of The Phoenix, which deals with SEAC PR. Other photos of ME examples are scattered in various references, I don't know of a single good source.

[Nick Millman]

For pure reference sources I can't add much to what Graham has suggested but FWIW for a personal account of Hurricane 1 TacR flying I recommend the book by Wg Cdr Geoffrey Morley-Mower DFC, AFC "Messerschmitt Roulette" about 451 Sqn Tac R ops in the Western Desert. There are several photographs of Hurricane 1s, most of which appear to be very scruffy and without any unit codes or individual letters - just serials. One aircraft he flew Z4641 (Trop Mk.1) looks to be in DE, MS and Sky (possibly a MU repaint job) with the name "Olive II" under the cockpit. No squadron codes or individual letter.

[dragonlanceHR]

@Graham - I have the book, great read and lots of TacR Mk.II but no Mk.I's

@Nic - AJ-Press has a photo of Olive II but she's not pregnant! (no recce belly pod).

Here's the drawing of the pod from the same AJ-Press book (fair use etc.):

I found the "Messerschmitt Roulette" in online bookshops, but being a cheapskate, are there any photos of Hurricanes with the pod inside?

I'll get the book sooner if it has the photos.

[Test Graham]

Did TacR Hurris have the pod anyway? Surely they were PR? I've seen at least one picture of an ME one, in the same dark Blue as Geoff Thomas describes.

It might be on the old Almark PR sheet, I'll try to remember to dig it out for a look when I get in the loft.

[Test Graham]

Me again. The sheet had a Mk.II. I did find a number of profiles but no pictures.

W9116 is in Profile 111. Shown in pale blue, serial and A in black, GRANNIE Two on the nose in yellow, underwing tanks. It is also shown in Militaria 79, in a medium/dark blue. Underwing tanks in both cases.

T9536 is also in the Profile. Shown after having been recaptured from the Germans, it is in a medium/dark blue, white serial, yellow spinner, dark nose and overpainted J behind the overpainted roundel, with a black cross. The filter and PR fairing are in a light grey(?) and the fin flash is full height dark blue and white. Iti s also in Monographie Lotnicze 52, but here it is darkish blue overall, except for the yellow spinner, and German overpainting of the roundel, the J and the entire fin flash.

The Mushroom Monthly quotes serials for the first three PR Mk.1s, DG613/G with three internal cameras, and V7423/V7428 with the fairing. The survivors went to India - so it might be worth a reread of EOTP.

[AnonymousFO98]

I have a resin Camera pack from SAM a few years back looks different to this one iirc has a triangular arrangement and looks wider

just looking at the plan view- doesn't correspond to the side elevation- or is the first camera tucked in a forward recess ?

this looks like it would be exposed to oil leaks

[mhaselden]

I have a resin Camera pack from SAM a few years back looks different to this one iirc has a triangular arrangement and looks wider

just looking at the plan view- doesn't correspond to the side elevation- or is the first camera tucked in a forward recess ?

this looks like it would be exposed to oil leaks

Or is the first camera forward-looking along the direction of flight? Just a thought...

[AnonymousFO98]

yes and presumably angled down

The problem was that the lens would get splattered with oil leaks in that position

but looking again my first impression is correct

you should be able to see part of the lens.

[mhaselden]

yes and presumably angled down

The problem was that the lens would get splattered with oil leaks in that position

but looking again my first impression is correct

you should be able to see part of the lens.

You may be right. From Mason's book on the Hurricane:

"Mention above of the "Tac R" and "PR" Hurricanes requires some qualification, as both these versions came about as the result of local requirements and were not therefore logically described in earlier chapters. The Tac R Mark I was externally scarcely distinguishable from the standard Tropical Mark I, but usually incorporated an additional or alternative radio transmitter for liaison with ground forces; some aircraft had one or two Browning guns removed and a vertical camera installed aft of the cockpit. The Tac R Mark IIC was readily identifiable by the absence of one or two of the cannon to accommodate a camera. As previously mentioned, the Tactical Reconnaissance squadrons often adopted non-standard "desert" camouflage and, following the "sand-and-spaghetti" of No. 208, other squadrons tried all manner of paint schemes from all-over sand finish and all-over mid-stone to grey-and-sand on three aircraft of No. 451 Squadron, RAAF.

The photo-reconnaissance Hurricanes, of which relatively few good pictures have ever been traced, were a rare breed indeed. It is believed that a total of no more than about 12 PR Mark Is was produced by the Service Depot at Heliopolis, all eventually destined for No. 2 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. The first three (believed to be P2915, W9116 and W9353) had been modified at Heliopolis in great secrecy in January 1941 for the Intelligence Photo Flight, set up by Longmore to cover areas of the Middle East not normally accessible to other aircraft. Two of these Hurricanes carried a pair of F24 8-inch cameras, the other one vertical and two oblique F24 14-inch cameras in the rear fuselage aft of the radiator, necessitating a prominent fairing; all had their guns removed and carried extra fuel tanks in the wings. They were followed by five further PR Mark Is in March (among them V7423 and V7428). The colour scheme adopted in the Middle East for these aircraft was a fairly dark blue all over. They were used to considerable effect, particularly during the Iraqi rebellion and Syrian campaign. Two similar PR Mark Is were modified in Malta during April 1941.

In October that year conversion of six Hurricane PR Mark IIs was sanctioned (Z5132, DG630 et al), but they were not completed in time to take part in preparations for Crusader, the first two being delivered to No. 2 PRU in December; they were said to be capable of a maximum speed of slightly over 350 mph and were able to reach 38,000 feet without trouble. Another batch, believed to number about a dozen aircraft, was converted at the end of 1942 or early 1943, most of these late series Mark IIs being shipped to India for use by No. 3 PRU; however, at least three were flown by a detachment of No. 680 (PR) Squadron from Tocra in Libya as late as July 1944."

Mason seems to suggest that the MkI PR aircraft had no external lump, which seems to be confirmed by the following website which shows a rough sketch of the camera installation:

http://www.airrecce.co.uk/WW2/recce_ac/RAFARP2.html (scroll down to the Hurricane - the top of the page covers the Mossie).

Kind regards,

Mark

[Test Graham]

Two of these Hurricanes carried a pair of F24 8-inch cameras, the other one vertical and two oblique F24 14-inch cameras in the rear fuselage aft of the radiator, necessitating a prominent fairing;

Mason seems to suggest that the MkI PR aircraft had no external lump, which seems to be confirmed by the following website which shows a rough sketch of the camera installation:

Mark

Sorry Mark, from your own quote Mason specifically describes the "external lump", and it is seen on the profile below (which is one of the ones I mentioned, so thanks for that link). I think the use of the term "oblique" is confusing. This could normally mean sideways, as in the camera behind the pilot in FR Mustangs, but I suspect here may mean slightly different off-vertical mountings to provide stereoscopic pictures. The sketch is a little odd - why provide three downward pointing cameras? The description of one being oblique, or pointing forward, makes more sense.

Presumably it was the oil leak problem that led to Hurricanes mounting the forward-looking camera in the wing, and the later FR standard method of taking pictures from the side. Which has the additional merit of making a more difficult target for flak gunners, too.

[ROGERD]

Sorry Mark, from your own quote Mason specifically describes the "external lump", and it is seen on the profile below (which is one of the ones I mentioned, so thanks for that link). I think the use of the term "oblique" is confusing. This could normally mean sideways, as in the camera behind the pilot in FR Mustangs, but I suspect here may mean slightly different off-vertical mountings to provide stereoscopic pictures. The sketch is a little odd - why provide three downward pointing cameras? The description of one being oblique, or pointing forward, makes more sense.

Presumably it was the oil leak problem that led to Hurricanes mounting the forward-looking camera in the wing, and the later FR standard method of taking pictures from the side. Which has the additional merit of making a more difficult target for flak gunners, too.

I have built the 1/24 trumpy kit as a TR11C , using information sent by colin-shipton knight from the IMPS forum , the pictures I have shown a sideways looking camera

mounted on the LH fuselage side just after the wing root and a vertical camera underside - no fairing , with what looks like the lens protruding .

as for the guns being removed, some pictures show both retained or one removed, but unclear if inboard or outborad cannons were removed?

I will try to dig out the info I have, and if you want copies then just PM me. as these may be subject to copyright then I will not post them on here.

or you could try the aforementioned gentleman on the IPMS forun.

as for the shape and profile of the fairing, photo seem particularly eluisve, as the seem to have been made locally at the service depot I doubt if a standard set of drawings were ever produced, I stand to be corrected if proved wrong.

all the pictures I do have are not good quality , graniny and indistinct.

[Nick Millman]

Yes, distinctions between Tac R and PR are not being fully made here. Tac R sorties often involved visual observation and note taking at low-level without cameras fitted. In the desert the Tac R Hurricanes tried to avoid 109s - hence the low-level camouflage variations - and ground fire from approaching targets - hence the "Italian" leading edge trim.

No PR "pod" photos in Morley-Mower's book - only Tac R Hurricanes which is what was originally requested.

[Test Graham]

and ground fire from approaching targets - hence the "Italian" leading edge trim.

No PR "pod" photos in Morley-Mower's book - only Tac R Hurricanes which is what was originally requested.

Hmm, I think you are right about the TacR reason, but that doesn't explain its use on carrier Fulmars. It ws fairly common on Hurricanes, including standard day fighters, and close inspection indicates it is the underside colour taken up rather than the yellow often shown. I think there was may have been more than one approach.

The confusion is in the title of the original post, which is actually asking for use of the underfuselage fairing. As you say, that's PR.

[dragonlanceHR]

Graham, Nic and all,

thank you for your info and clarification between TacR and PR Hurricanes.

I asked about "TacR recce pods" because the drawing in AJ-Press No.51 is named so, TacR Mk.I, not PR Mk. I.

The kit part fits the drawing spot-on.

@ROGERD

Indeed, that was the SEAC TacR Mk.IIC fit, I plan building one Indian AF kit in the future.

[Test Graham]

More Hurricane derogation, I suspect. PR means fast and high and cutting edge - not the bumbling slow Hurricane, surely? Must be some mistake - must mean TacR. Possibly not even conscious. But it does rather depend upon the date, the theatre, the opposition, and what you've got to play with. Singapore used a Buffalo for PR, fairly successfully too (if the word can be used in the context of that collapse).

[mhaselden]

More Hurricane derogation, I suspect. PR means fast and high and cutting edge - not the bumbling slow Hurricane, surely? Must be some mistake - must mean TacR. Possibly not even conscious. But it does rather depend upon the date, the theatre, the opposition, and what you've got to play with. Singapore used a Buffalo for PR, fairly successfully too (if the word can be used in the context of that collapse).

So much of the British war effort was "make do and mend" as my old Grandma used to say. About the only thing that worked as advertised was the UK's integrated air defence system during the Battle of Britain. The Army and the RN were both woefully unprepared for the war. As for air operations outside the UK, we were still flying Wellesleys in some theatres. If the Hurri was the fastest aircraft available, then that was the most suitable aircraft for PR in that theatre (as per the 2 Buffalos used in Singapore). The UK was very reluctant to establish an adequate PR capability and, once established, it took even longer to percolate the capability out to other theatres - every Spit/Mossie used for PR meant one less fighter or bomber for the front line Commands. In that context, when theatre commanders were crying out for PR, it's hardly suprising that local ingenuity came into play to modify aircraft locally for roles that they were never really designed to accomplish.

[Test Graham]

No, I think that's the kind of exaggeration that simplifies history and misleads. There's little wrong with the Wellesley when your opponent flies SM81s. The desert war was well advanced before ANY Mossie became available to anyone - with the Hurricane Mk.I we are talking years before: times where even Spitfires were rare - and certainly not free to be handed out willy-nilly. Yes, the RAF was slow to adopt PR in 1939 - but it had Cotton's Hudsons in the desert at an early date. The Maryland was fast, long-ranged and effective, before the Mossie even flew for the first time.

The idea that the desert only got obsolete types is so embedded that the offical SAAF history even claims that when Spitfires eventually arrived in the desert, they were versions already superseded in Europe. These were Mk.Vs - months before the first Mk.IX squadron formed anywhere!

[mhaselden]

No, I think that's the kind of exaggeration that simplifies history and misleads. There's little wrong with the Wellesley when your opponent flies SM81s. The desert war was well advanced before ANY Mossie became available to anyone - with the Hurricane Mk.I we are talking years before: times where even Spitfires were rare - and certainly not free to be handed out willy-nilly. Yes, the RAF was slow to adopt PR in 1939 - but it had Cotton's Hudsons in the desert at an early date. The Maryland was fast, long-ranged and effective, before the Mossie even flew for the first time.

The idea that the desert only got obsolete types is so embedded that the offical SAAF history even claims that when Spitfires eventually arrived in the desert, they were versions already superseded in Europe. These were Mk.Vs - months before the first Mk.IX squadron formed anywhere!

Graham,

My post wasn't as clear as it should have been. In referring to Spits/Mossies, I was merely using them as examples (after they entered service) of the pressures from both Fighter Command and Bomber Command to have more aircraft with guns/bombs. Agree that other types were suitable in other theatres (although the Wellesley still suffered against Italian fighters) which was the entire point of my post - that theatre commanders had to make do with what they had (the best example being Iraq in May 1941 where Oxfords were used as bombers!).

The whole organisation of PR capabilities took a long time and much of the focus in the UK was on "strategic" PR not tactical support to deployed forces. Sydney Cotton's Hudsons may have been in the desert quite early on but they weren't persistent and were not "owned" by the local commander. Also, there is far more to PR than just the pilot - you need personnel and equipment to process the film and then exploit the imagery, and do it sufficiently quickly to enable commanders to make better-informed decisions.

KR

Mark

[Colin S-K]

Vedran,

Just seen this thread, been unable to log in to BM for a couple of days....!

Interesting sharing of views and information in this thread, even learnt a couple of things.

Underside camera housing is for PR Hurricanes, Tac Recce, or FR Hurricanes had quite different cameras, no matter what mark.

Tac Recce is quite a generalised subject from making observations to taking photos of opportunity, usually at lower/low altitudes requiring oblique camera's. These camera's have shorter focal lengths which means smaller length camera's that can be relatively easily fitted within the fuselage.

PR Photography is more on a strategic level, requiring aircraft flying at higher altitudes, using different techniques and using camera's with long focal lengths, meaning longer camera's that often require more room to be fitted, hence sometimes protruding out the bottom of the aircraft in a fairing like the Hurricane PRII/PRI?

Visit My Website

The fairing did more than contain the camera's, but also protected them from the cold of altitude and from oil behind blown backwards from the engine, let alone vibration.

The pod as far as I am aware did not have a forward looking oblique camera, but had two vertical camera's, angled slightly differently to give 'stereoscopic' photos of any camera run. They may have had a third vertical camera for 'mapping' shots of the photo run covered. Some of the drawings and model parts I have seen of this pod I would question the accuracy..? Especially as few good photos seem to exist of them.

Colour schemes varied widely between the marks used, generally Tac Recce aircraft were camouflaged like fighters, and were often armed. PR aircraft tended to be painted Blue, sometimes PR Blue, but with Hurricanes this varied widely, far more than PR operations in Europe.

If you, or any body else, would like a copy of the information I have then feel free to email me at,

[email protected]

I do not have everything, but I have quite a bit.

Colin

Photo Recce SIG

[Test Graham]

Mark: Oxfords were not used as bombers by choice. A training base thought to be well away from any front line was surrounded, and used what it had. I don't see that as the basis for any kind of comment on distribution of superior types. I don't disagree with you in principle, but make the point that in the context of ME use of Hurricane Mk Is and Marylands in 1940/early 1941, it is not a case of using obsolete and poor-performing cast-offs. I agree with the need for specialist personnel, but why do you imagine that these did not exist within 2 PRU? Certainly the Navy seems to have made good use of RAF PR in the ME, which would not have been possible with "just the pilot".

There is a British fondness for claiming that nothing was right until some one man band came along: the sytem never worked, nothing was ever prepared or ready or efficient. It's usually a myth.

[mhaselden]

Mark: Oxfords were not used as bombers by choice. A training base thought to be well away from any front line was surrounded, and used what it had. I don't see that as the basis for any kind of comment on distribution of superior types. I don't disagree with you in principle, but make the point that in the context of ME use of Hurricane Mk Is and Marylands in 1940/early 1941, it is not a case of using obsolete and poor-performing cast-offs. I agree with the need for specialist personnel, but why do you imagine that these did not exist within 2 PRU? Certainly the Navy seems to have made good use of RAF PR in the ME, which would not have been possible with "just the pilot".

There is a British fondness for claiming that nothing was right until some one man band came along: the sytem never worked, nothing was ever prepared or ready or efficient. It's usually a myth.

Yes, Graham, the Oxfords were used because of circumstance - the more fundamental question is posed by a recent review of the campaign which cited Iraq as being vital to British interests in the region (ie if Iraq had fallen, then the UK would have lost access to oil supplies and risked a domino effect right through the ME and into India. if Iraq was so important, why was it not better defended?

My initial post was in response to your comment about "bumbling Hurricanes" which suggested that the Hurri wasn't up to the job. I think it was (in the ME or North Africa context) but your comments suggested it wasn't. Your subsequent posts indicate that wasn't your view but your post could be read both ways. As for cast-offs, the Maryland was just such a case. The aircraft used in Malta were ex-French and the type was never a mainstream type. Like I said - make do and mend...

However, this is moving away from the purpose of the thread.

KR

Mark

[Ley]

One point re Iraq - it was not garrisoned by British forces immediately before WW2 and hence could not be defended by them as it was an independant country. The British had a FTS in Iraq and Treaty Rights to transport troops through the country with the agreement of the Iraqi Government and may well have had some influence with the King and his Cabinet. However the campaign was an invasion of a sovereign country because HMG did not like the policies of those behind the revolt.

[diamant]

Hi Vedran

There is a photograph of the Hurricane Mk I P2638 (PR I) fitted with the photo camera housing at the Imperial War Museum site web. Actually there are two photographs of this aircraft.

Here is the link http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk

When you click in Photographs a photograph search page appears.

Complete the Keyword(s) field with P2638 and then select “Second World war” in the Period option.

After clicking Search two photographs will appear.

First photograph

Quote

HU 65506 REFERENCE NUMBER

TITLE: BRITISH AIRCRAFT IN ROYAL AIR FORCE SERVICE, 1939-1945: HAWKER HURRICANE.

COLLECTION NUMBER: 9106-04

PERIOD: Second World War

DATE: July 1942

ACCESS: Unrestricted

COLOUR / BLACK & WHITE: Black and white

TYPE: photograph

Hawker Hurricane PR Mark I, P2638, of No. 208 Squadron RAF, on the ground, probably at LG 39/Burgh el Arab, Egypt. Following service as a fighter with No.274 Squadron RAF, P2638 was modified as a tropicalised photo-reconnaissance aircraft, and joined No.208 Squadron at Heliopolis in early July 1942. It was shot down on 27 July by three Messerschmitt Bf 109Fs

Unquote

Second photograph

Quote

CM 868 REFERENCE NUMBER

TITLE: ROYAL AIR FORCE OPERATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, 1939-1943.

COLLECTION NUMBER: 4700-20

PERIOD: Second World War

DATE: May 1941

ACCESS: Unrestricted

COLOUR / BLACK & WHITE: Black and white

TYPE: Official photograph

Sergeant Pilot F H Dean of No. 274 Squadron RAF examines belts of .303 ammunition before they are installed in his aircraft at Sidi Barrani, Egypt. In the background, one of the groundcrew attaches a trolley-accumulator to Hawker Hurricane Mark I, P2638, sporting the yellow lightning flash emblem (later changed to blue) which became 274 Squadron's unofficial insignia at about this time. Sergeant Dean was shot down and killed on 15 May 1941, when his section of Hurricanes fought with Messerschmitt Bf 109s near Halfaya at the start of Operation BREVITY.

Un Quote

I hope this help you

Kind regards

Santiago

PD

The next batch of our current project will include the following Hurricanes (all fitted with the photo camera housing).

- Hurricane PR I P2638 208 Sqd LG 39/Burgh el Arab, Egypt July 1942

- Hurricane Mk IIB U BH125, 3 PRU Agartala, India November 1942.

- Hurricane Mk IIB BM969, 3 PRU Agartala, India November 1942.

- Hurricane Mk IIC DG630 208 sqn Kabril, Egypt 1942.

[dragonlanceHR]

Thank you Santiago!

Vedran