[ATTACH=CONFIG]229329[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]229330[/ATTACH]
Is this the same fuel tank?
Jason
From just looking at the photos, then yes I think that they are the same type of fuel tank.
Here’s a photo of the tank again, but this time fitted to a Typhoon, showing the type of bracket that they did have detailed drawings of in the AVIA files at the national archives:-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Hawker_Typhoon_fuel_tank_fitting_WWII_IWM_CL_1725.jpg
Does this in any way help?
Hi Antoni,
Thank you for that.
Yes, I was aware that Eduard had made this accessory in 48th scale. It helps in that it confirms the general layout, but has been necessarily simplified slightly to enable it to be constructed in 48th scale and to make best use of their materials
I would think (by that I mean that it looks in the beer photo that the main mounting bracket might be ‘blades’ with the main longitudinal piece which runs above a good portion of the length of the tank having a ‘T’ shape section rather than being a solid block. Also, on the forward part of the bracket which eduard have replicated in etched brass, the ‘diagonal arms’ appear to be blades in the eduard version whereas they look like they might be rods on the real thing?).
Of course I don’t know what references Eduard have used and I think they’re to be commended for producing it, (I wish they’d do one in 32nd scale and I’d offer my help to do so if I could find the details) but if their main source was this beer photo, it’s unclear from the shot exactly where these diagonal rods actually fit at the tank, to what and how.
Here’s a page showing that photo and an article on the eduard product and the tank:-
http://www.themodellingnews.com/2013/09/review-eduards-brassin-spitfire-drop.html
I can confirm from wartime squadron diaries that aircraft crash landed due to problems switching between this and the main fuel tank.
According to files I saw at the national archives it also made the aircraft around 14mph slower at most altitudes due to the way it hung off the aircraft.
Thanks, Bob.
Hi Edgar, thanks very much for that input.
Yes, I’d already got the 126 sqn Appendices to the ORB which did provide some snippets but nothing about the names. It was very useful for other things e.g. detailing aircraft loadouts for specific dates, such as on D-Day, all the aircraft were fitted with the 45 gallon jettisonable tanks.
I found a copy of ‘Gifts of War’ myself last week and did find that there were several Persian Gulf Aircraft which had previously been allocated to other squadrons. It listed ‘Bahrain III’ as a MkIXt (tropical?) and as you say, with the timings it doesn’t look like the same aircraft that was in the December IWM photo called ‘Bahrain III’. It also mentioned that aircraft were sometimes renamed or re-allocated and that regarding the Persian Fund names:- ‘There appears to have been no request that any of these names be applied to aircraft of No 126 (Persian Gulf) Sqn, equipped with Spitfires and later Mustangs’.
So I was starting to come to a similar sort of conclusion that perhaps the association with 126 Sqn and the aircraft might have only begun that December (unless a photograph showing a named aircraft is found).
Thanks very much again Mark12, that’s brilliant. First time I’ve seen that one.
It looks like a crop from a bigger photo. Can you tell me the photo’s source at all please and does it have a date?
It certainly looks to have the same stripes/letter on the tail/partially obscured fuselage code letter, layout as the 5J-L photo and I’m guessing this would still be in June?
If it was before the 20th June (when John Plagis took over the Sqn), then this would still have been S/Ldr Swinden’s aircraft and there might have been a pennant on it either on this or the other side (I can’t make out for sure because of photo distortions if there is actually a lighter rectangle visible below and slightly forward of the windscreen, as in a pennant, or just a lighter reflection/staining on the fuselage as it curves?). Not sure if it’s an eye trickery based upon the power of suggestion or not.
I’m especially pleased to see a period photo of this one anyway, with it being still preserved in a museum today.
It would be really useful if a photo of ML214 ‘K’ surfaced from sometime around this era, showing the port side, as I have wondered what date the ‘Muscat’ lettering had been applied and a ‘white or grey smudge’ would be all that’s required in that case.
Also if any of the Squadron’s other aircraft displayed a hint of a name on the port side before December.
Thank you very much again, much appreciated. Bob.
Thanks very much for posting these Mark12. I have seen these before, plus another side-on view, but had (probably incorrectly) perhaps assumed (and I know that’s got to be a dodgy thing to do when trying to research something properly) that possibly because of the way the cannons were painted here (I don’t know if this was a 126 sqn normal thing or not as I’ve not come across any other shots except the crash landed 5J-L MK989 of W/O Hinten, RAAF, seen on the fundekals page link at the bottom, which has regular camouflaged cannon) that these might have been ‘perked up’ specially for the December Persian Gulf Fund presentation ceremony – which might make this ‘post presentation in December’ photo).
I’ve just been looking through the 64 sqn Operational Record Book (as 126 Sqn became their Wing partners after 611 Sqn, in July 1944).
They seem to have operated quite a few times jointly as a Wing on operations and also quite often went off to Ford, or Tangmere as a base for an op, only to return again to Harrowbeer in the evening or next day (so I’m hoping that some photos may surface from these locations perhaps?).
It also said in the 64 sqn ORB dated 24th July 1944, that there was a squadron photo in the morning and a Wing photograph in the afternoon. ‘Both of these ought to turn out well as they were taken in this glorious sunshine which we experience all too little round here’. I’d love to see those if they still existed somewhere.
Thanks again, Bob.