Hurricane
 

Sergio/Jerry/Hawkeye

The panels under the cockpit and just behind the cockpit are metal panels anyway. Some have already been removed.

The rear fuselage would still be canvas. Even doping and a single paint covering makes it look very hard. A few more paint coverings and you will not be able to see the timber longerons. Still canvas I believe.

The exhaust seem to be the traditional 'double' exhaust stacks. Were they called kidney type?

still very nice.

regards

Mark

Thanks Mark.
And the canvas is a "little frozzen"...

The exhausts are what made me question the Mk of that aircraft. They look like Mk. I ejector stacks. Also the Windshiled appears to be not armored.

I found a picture of Z5252 White 51. This aircraft is listed as a Mk. II in the serial info I have, but the exhaust is the early ejector stack. This aircraft was built by Gloster, not Hawker. It also appears that Gloster was building Mk. Is after Hawker had switched to Mk. II production. So it is possible that this is a Mk. II aircraft usinmg left over parts from the Mark I.

It appeas the ebay photo may be of a Gloster built Mk. II in the Z seial range.

contact
 

Steven

Drop me an email.

There is an article you might be interested in reading on a Soviet Hurricane. Sergio has already seen it.

regards

Mark

exhausts
 

Hi
checked a few books and photos,
they don't look like early Mk I exhausts
or like any exhausts in any of my references,
The photo on e bay, appears to be a one piece exhaust,
maybe the russians engineered their own local exhaust, that worked better in the cold climate ?
cheers
Jerry

It was a Mk. I exhaust. Nothing custom, as these were early arrivals. I can't even remver seeing the VVS messing with the exhaust on the Hurricane.

http://home.earthlink.net/~modeldad/ragwinghurri2.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~modeldad/MkIexhaust1.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~modeldad/MkIexhaust2.jpg

exhuats
 

hi
front two holes looked at 90 deg to a/c, & one piece exhaust
but must be the angle of the dangle then , or my eyes.....
cheers
jerry

Definately the angle of the dangle.. or the mass of the ......