Rather than a “cartridge”, most of the earlier PB’s used a detonator burster to blow the smoke compound (titanium tetrachloride liquid) out of the tail cone. The tail cones were filled on-site by the armourers during det fitting. The Ti-Tet produced a white smk cloud on contact with air but cannot now remember if it was ignited. See below for sectional pic:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224991[/ATTACH]

SP, great picture thank you. It is exactly the unit I have and explains a lot. When they mounted it on the piston they pulled out the striker head and replaced it with a threaded rod. Do you have any more detail or dimensions available?

Tit tet sounds like fun but I guess already this thread has been picked up by some super computer trolling for neverdowells.. so I wont ask you for a detailed composition unless you PM !

Thanks, Ed

Pretty much the same principle, the nose had a plunger that in turn pushed a long firing pin up and into a .410 or similar shotgun cartridge. That emitted smoke from the tube that ends by the tail fins. Range master would then log the smoke emitted in relation to the practice target.

Thats the simple laymans (Me!) explanation. An ex armourer will no doubt be along to put me right too 🙂 I have an 11½ lb version here at home.

*edit:
I think a coloured flammable substance was filled using the second offset hole. That burnt emitting smoke from the rear tube. The centre hole being for the cartridge.

Thanks Denis, can you post up a pic of your 11 1/2 pounder and its innards, if that is possible. Ed

In basic composition terms, S88c has the same (or inside the variation tolerances) element precentages as the still active French steel spec 35NCD16. A while ago I did see this availble as sheet but only in mm sizes…… DOH! But a quick check just now I couldn’t see anyone stocking it as sheet.

As for the spec of Canadian Hurricanes – JNE Aircraft restoration shoud be able to advise as he’s just rebuild one……pretty sure it’s 4130 which is available as sheet in imperail sizes.

When it comes to replacement matl, be careful with just going up in strength……. the spars have to be rolled and if the material too strong (i.e. hard) it will crack when you try to form it. You need a material in a Goldy-Locks zone, not to hard, not too soft.

Thank you for the connection to 35NCD16 (gold) and 4130 for JNE Hurricane – I think there is a wider experience with Hurricane dealing with S88 analogues.

I have 35NC15 under French strip = 1.5952 German in the ballpark but no Moly, I do not have specs for 35NCD16, does it have Moly ?
There was 1% Tungsten in S88, its a big dollop to have in something.
Do you have a babelfish that you can input specs into and it comes out with commercially available grades ?

Habershons did strip for Hawkers & Bristols, no doubt others. Who supplied the cast slabs to Habershons ? What happened to Habershons ?
What happened to the British steel industry?
Mon Dieu ! French strip in a Hawker ! Sopwith will be turning in his grave…still it was Bleriot who got him in, so maybe there is Concorde in it after all.

RAAF 314

Hand up!!!

Send pm with postal address details

None of those numbers exist on the Def Stan website as .pdfs. I’ll forward the lists anyway.

Thank you. The DTD standards I mentioned are long obsolete, really need to find a tea chest in the attic of a 100 year old airframe stress analyst.
Nevil Shute Norway’s attic would be good, but I think it was long cleared out.

RAAF Publication 314 Canadian equivalent – what is it ?

I would be looking into the materials used in the Canadian built Hurricanes and Bolingbrokes. I have been lead to believe there is a materials substitution list for British to American specs in existence for the Canadian Hurricane and Bolingbroke production. 🙂

Aussies and Canucks have had to keep the peace between the USA and UK designs and the Aussie WW2 fitter had to make things work between aircraft types from two different continents of thought. I have RAAF Publication 314 “Aeronautical Engineering Handbook” Nov 1944 which, beyond acting as a pillow as I sleep, acts as a babelfish between UK and US standards and materials.

There are a number of tables in it giving US and UK materials and their UK, US and local equivalents, understanding that Australia’s BHP was outputting some remarkable products to support manufacture of UK designs like Beauforts, Beaufighters and Mosquitos, and US designs like Mustangs.

No doubt there would have to be an equivalent Canadian standard that allowed local materials to be substituted for British materials which were totally unavailable in WW2. If there is a Canuck on the forum who knows, stop shovelling snow and post up please ! What is the Canadian equivalent to RAAF Engineering Publication 314.

If anybody wants a copy of 314, I have spent 18 hours reformatting the odd original page size to A4, so it can be easily copied.

If anybody knows material specifications for Canadian Hurricane spars, I would be grateful to see these.

Yes Please

I have access to the Defence Standards website that lists all DTD numbers with a basic title and current status as well as a list of all those DTD standards available in.pdf format. Can forward the list files if wanted. Any particular numbers?

I feel like the Beverley Hillbillies when they found a gusher in their backyard !

These are oldies but goodies :

DTD 54A, obsolete 1936, becomes S88 1936, S88 obsolete late 40s
DTD 100 and DTD 99, obsolete early thirties.
DTD 166A, obsolete mid fifties, becomes S520, becomes S524

Somebody, somewhere, has a box full of musty DTD files from 1925 – 1945 that they think are worthless, but as Englebert Humperdink would sing, there is a lover out there for everybody.

Ed