But that movie’s already been done…
Does Quid think only the buffs remember Hitler, Stalin, Churchill et al? More than half the people I know can tell you who Monty was but havent a clue about Gibson unless they are black & white movie buffs, which they are not.
I really liked “The Full Monty”, though I think they changed a few of the facts of the Field Marshal’s life…
Cheers,
bob
..Just to add a splash of colour, this of interest perhaps?
An original set of Dupont paint chips to MAP standards…
Oh great, now we have “Deep Sky” and “Deep Sky Blue”!
I encountered “Deep Sky” as an underside color for high altitude (Fortresses, specifically). The implication of the documents I read was that this would be the underside color for the “High Altitude” scheme- and yet PRU Blue seems to be associated with that scheme (on fighters- as shown in the camo scheme document on page 2)- is that a subsequent adjustment?
bob
p.s. I’m afraid I don’t have anything to contribute (that hasn’t already been said) about “Sky”, except to note that it usually appears (to my eye) to be paler in period color photos than it is represented in model paints and decals. Decals seem to have a horrible time attaining consistency… maybe they are accurately reflecting the “McKay effect” 🙂
E’s and E’s
The “E” designation was also used on Spitfires for a wing that could carry variations on cannon and MG fits plus bombs underneath.
Not quite. The ‘E’ wing for a Spitfire was a modified ‘C’ wing, which specifically had 2 20mm cannon and 2 .5″ machine guns, no other gun combination. It could carry wing bomb racks, but this is not part of what makes it an ‘E’ wing.
The MkIID wing fitted to the VWoC MKIV would be identical to the MKIV wing.
I don’t think we can make that assumption- as you said, the ‘D’ wing on the Hurricane was specifically to carry 40mm cannon. The ‘E’ wing was universal, in other words allowing change from one weapon/store to another. When the “IIE” was redesignated Mk.IV, the suffix disappeared because there was only one choice (wing type) for a Mk.IV. There must have been SOME difference between them, else we wouldn’t have had a D and an E. The question is, are the differences anything one can see?
bob
Well, I’m not a British chap, but I believe I can answer the question.
The internal armament was the same as IID- one .303 each side. It appears this could not be used when equipped with rockets because the rocket installation blocked the shell ejector chute. The “universal” aspect was the ability to change between long range tanks/bombs, rockets, or 40mm cannon.
As for the current one, I don’t know the details of the restoration, but 4 cannon is certainly not representative of a Hurricane Mk.IV.
Mk.I Serials fitted with Rotol
per Vickers 339 27/3/40
“Mod 124 (mod landing lamp control)… to suit the incorporation of the Rotol airscrew control. This mod is applicable to the 22 machines fitted… in accordance with amendments dated 3/8/39 and 21/9/39.”
from another document in this file, date unrecorded: (all had alteration No.36 to provide armour protection for pilot) aircraft fitted with Rotols:
[Note: all delivered to 54 Sqn except as noted:]
N3030 [to 19 Sqn 3/10/39, then to 54 10/1/40]
N3096
N3097
N3103
N3104
N3110
N3111
N3122
N3124
N3130
N3160
N3171 [to AMDP charge, to Boscombe 19/3/40 for comparative trials]
N3172
N3173
N3174
N3176
N3180
N3183
N3184
N3185
N3187
N3188
Vickers 340 23/4/40: …ten Spitfire are to be selected… and fitted with Rotol…. The aeroplanes so fitted are urgently required for allotment to service units, and I am to request you to proceed immediately with the necessary work.
from Vickers 342 8/8/40 [re communications in May. Note these aircraft not delivered until July- I assume they are the same 10, but don’t know for sure. Most went to 54, but a number to 609 and other squadrons]
selected for fitment of specially modified Merlin III and Rotol
R6977
R6979
R6981
R6993
R6995
R7015
R7017
R7019
R7020
R7021
Hope this helps,
Bob