MarkGMark,
Any update on your Hunter project?
For various reasons I’ve made very little progress over the past 6 months. It looked like this http://www.hawkerhunter.com/2531/ at Cockpitfest last year. That was nice because it was the first time it’s been back in one piece since I chopped it up in 2001/2002! 😀
As ever, time (closely followed by space and money) is the biggest problem at present so it still looks exactly the same now I’m afraid. 🙁
MarkGI’ve never had a problem with acrylic paints so I don’t bother trying to track down cellulose any more. Maybe I’ve just been lucky. 🙂
Another type of paint that I’ve found very good is synthetic enamel. Not sure how it differs from other formula paints but it’s excellent stuff and can easily be sprayed, brushed or rollered. Once cured, it’s extremely durable.
MarkGI believe I still have some photos of it while at Botany Bay in 2001 or thereabouts. They sent them to me when I enquired about buying it back then. When I found out the asking price I lost interest though.:)
Will see if I can find them later.
MarkGXE622 was indeed based at RAF Kai Tak with 28 Squadron and was coded ‘A’.
28 Sqn. re-equipped with Hunters in 1962 and this photos therefore shows XE622 after conversion to an FGA.9.
The squadron was disbanded in 1967 but XE622 never made it that far, being written off and destroyed by an engine starter explosion in July 1966.
Prior to all that, ‘622 was delivered (as an F.6) in July 1956 to 263 Sqn. before moving to 66 Sqn. in September 1959, then No. 1 Sqn. in April 1960. The aircraft was returned to Hawkers for upgrade to an FGA.9 in October of the same year.
MarkGFrom a little light research, it would appear that it is from a Hunter.
I guess Singapore was one of the last users.
Bruce
AC63682, yup , that’s Hunter.
MarkGCorrect, ALL GA.11s were converted from F.4s.
The engines were the same and the airframe was basically the same but some changes were made, e.g. the addition of an airfield arrestor hook, change to F.6 ‘style’ wings (with the ‘dog tooth’ leading edge extensions).
All gun systems were removed and the gun ports and cartridge/link ejection ports faired over. Intially the GGS was retained however in order to target RPs for the ground attack role.
The avionics were updated with the addition of ARC.52 radios in place of the old TR.1986 and TR.1987 sets and the installation of TACAN navigation system.
Cockpit interior was modified to accomodate controls and instrumentation for the above and for the fitment of certain other updated instruments, e.g. height-encoding altimeter.
When the aircraft were later transferred from the FAA to FRADU most were fitted with Harley lights in place of the radome and the GGS removed due to the change of role discussed previously.
So, yes, basically an updated and slightly modified F.4 with guns removed and a pretty paint scheme!
MarkGThere are some nice photos on that page.
And if you look carefully, for example here http://www.fradu-hunters.co.uk/hunter7xx/images/xe682-by-0866-rd.jpg
and here http://www.fradu-hunters.co.uk/hunter7xx/images/xf297-by-0866-rd.jpg, they all have gunsights fitted!
MarkGThankyou Mark,
Youve cleared that little puzzle up for me,looks like they might have had the
Gunsight for about a year if that, and from what I have read, it is only the RN that had the GA.11, all converted from F.4 types.so it seems prettymuch as soon as they were put into service with the FAA, they had the gunsights Junked ,
Thanks again,
Chris C
Correct, they were all converted from F.4s, but we need to distinguish between the FAA and FRADU.
The GA.11s first went into service with the FAA as ground attack trainers in 1962. When the Navy were finished with them they started to move to FRADU (Fleet Requirements and Air Direction Unit which is a civilian operation) in 1969, and it seems likely that THAT’s the point when the GGS was removed as their role then changed to ‘pretending’ to be targets rather than shooting at stuff!
So they may have had gunsights for 7 or 8 years until FRADU took over.
Ps
Nice website on your Hunter !!,
Thanks!
MarkGLooking at various photos online, including this one from 1975 it looks like they had no gun sight fitted. I’m familiar with how this view angle should show a gunsight if fitted – XF382 has it’s in place and it is very obvious from this same angle.
Also this GA 11 image shows how it looks from the inside
True, that photo definately shows no GGS fitted. However, 1975 would put it well into FRADU ownership (in common with most other GA.11 photos on the web) which involved a change of role over their intial FAA ground attack training usage.
I have a GA.11/PR.11 Vol.1 in front of me (with amendments between April 1962 and November 1972) which has a section on the Mk.5A GGS installation so they certainly had them at the start. It does say though that “The installation in this aircraft differs in some respects. The gun sight is used only for rocket projectiles. This application does not employ radar ranging.”.
I suspect the GGS was removed as no longer needed when FRADU took on the aircraft in 1969/70.
MarkGMerkle,
In the GA.11 the guns and ammunition tanks were removed from the gun pack and the space used to house the TACAN navigation equipment. Consequently the gun ranging radar was also removed from the nose as it was no longer needed.
The Mk.5 GGS was retained however because, as you say, of the need to target RPs and bombs, although in the latter days I don’t think they were often fitted. Anyone know more?
MarkGCrikey, a thread guru! Actually I quite like the sound of that! 🙂
Anyway, as has already been said, you will mostly need 4BA (4mm clearance hole) or 2BA (5.5mm clearance hole) for fixing instruments, and maybe the odd small 6BA, in a variety of lengths around 1″ long and a mixture of countersunk (most common) or round head.
As XF940 said, some instruments (the Mk.4 GM compass is a good example as are some Turn & Slip instruments) used a ‘Unified’ thread which can be identified by a OOO symbol somewhere near the mounting holes. They’re usually UNF threads but off the top of my head I can’t remember what they are.
As for sources, you could go to LAS and pay through the nose for traceable, airworthy spec. fasteners, or you could buy commercial brass machine screws much cheaper. They’ll probably have to be painted anyway so it makes no difference for a static panel.
For example, try Fastfix Direct http://www.fastfixdirect.co.uk/, although they only seem to sell in larger quantities since I last ordered from them,
or EKP Supplies http://www.ekp.supplies.btinternet.co.uk/ for smaller quantities.
MarkGThere have been cases, where this behaviour has been ruled against, but that was concerning actual website “hotlinking”, like when various pages import wikipedia data and display it as their own (although its legal with wikipedia data). Single linking of an image has never been an issue.
Well it may not be an issue for you, but if I’m paying for web hosting by the megabyte and a chunk of what I pay is for others to display MY content on THEIR websites without paying a penny for the data transfer then I can assure you it’s an issue for me!
What’s the difference between ‘hotlinking’ to Wikipedia data and ‘hotlinking’ to a photo on another’s website? It’s all ‘content’ whether it be words or pictures and still bandwidth theft no matter what the content.
MarkGI might voice the opinion that the German bombing of London, Coventry et al were of little consequence compared to the devastating raids carried out on Germany by Bomber Command.
This is an interesting point. Yes, I believe it could be argued that, in terms of scale, the bombing of, let’s say, Coventry was dwarfed by the destruction visited upon Dresden or Hamburg. However, the intention, the carefully laid plan by Germany was the total and utter destruction, and the complete removal of Coventry from the map of Britain. That included the factories, the civilian workers that operated them, the houses they lived in, the churches they prayed in, the shops they bought their daily bread in, the lot. In that respect the conduct of Germany and Britain (in retaliation) did not differ and that’s the reason why those revisionist fools that hold up Dresden as such a crime should examine the intentions behind the preceeding devastating raids conducted by the Nazis. There’s no difference, save for the offensive nature of the German campaign against the retaliatory nature of the British.
As has already been said Harris was merely striking back in the only way possible at the time, and executing the will of the people to boot. If there is any criticism that can be levelled against him it is only in the stubborn way that he persisted with area bombing of German cities even when, at certain times, there were higher priority strategic targets to be dealt with. If, for example, Harris and Bomber Command hadn’t been placed under the control of Eisenhower in the run up to D-Day it would have been interesting to see if that policy would have continued even then.
As 12jaguar has already said, the biggest crime in my opinion was the desperate scramble, even before the war was over, by politicians (led by Churchill) to get as far away from involvement with Harris and the bombing campaign as possible. That attitude, along with the lack of a campaign medal and recognition for the likes of Harris, was and still is a shameful insult to the aircrew involved. Aircrew that died in greater numbers, percentage-wise, that soldiers on the Western Front in WWI.
MarkGWell, it’s certainly a Mk.3B now, but whether it was originally a Mk.2A is hard to tell from the photo. As John says, at first glance, I can’t make out the locations of the old fixing holes for the Mk.2A visor hinges – unless they’ve been well filled and obscured by the paint of course.
Nice helmet though and, getting back to the original question, a Type P or Q oxy mask would set it off a treat. 🙂
MarkGMarkG,
The 2A had a cut out visor: one of the reasons that I managed to ‘acquire’ one, to fit my largish nose :p
Ah, they thought of everything didn’t they?
22C/873969 visor, helmet, flying, protective – Mk.2A, for nose – Mk.1, size largish
:D:D:D
Sign In
