Martinnfb

Already ordered Big Box Horton and eagerly waiting for 109K and Spitfire Vb from Kotare and Das werk ,Me Prototype.1101 . Other that that ICM will be releasing UH-60A in 1/35 and/or maybe Revell's Sea Hurricane 2c?

Impressive

Time for some German subject, or Italian Looking good Scott.

I like the presence of the toothbrush

`I hope I am not loosing my marbles, but this looks like fabric covering. I see it bowing into the cavity of the canopy frame. I should stop watching the news, it's getting harder and harder to distinguish what is real. I would love to get my hands on the Naval fighter book, which has been long gone/sold out, especially after the recent Skyhawk releases in all scales.

I am not saying you are wrong Hubert, that's not what I am tryin to do. ,,,it has been proven over and over that authors make or copy mistakes. I am just trying to get to the core of it, there's no lateral intention. For instance here is a very early production Skyhawk with the canvas in place.

Full size pictures from the storage manual.

If this is written in the book form Billy Jack Long, then he is wrong. Both pictures are showing well used operational airframes, with full marking. I believe those coverings are part of storage/cold weather package. Pending confirmation upon arrival of my SC-1 maintenance manual. Source of the first picture, Naval Air Material Center, Report #N-4759, Rev.-1, May 1948, "securing and Storage of seaplanes aboard Battleships and Cruisers " (This is not a Curtis corporate manual, based on the early production models, but official US Navy issue publication, using well worn, operational examples ) Location: US Naval Base Station Philadelphia, PA. Source of the second: unknown, dated 1949 decommissioned from USS Iowa, after years of service, making place for helicopters. And just to add some pictures. Here is a pair, still operational aboard Iowa, dated 1947

Ohhhh, you are the cheeky bunch aren't you? I stand corrected. Next time state your sources.

Absolutely fantastic, thank you for sharing Dave, Welcome to the forum. Cheers Martin

Thank you Hubert.

I understand and don't want to turn this into a personal fuss . Any factual input would be greatly appreciated. And since this has become a huge bug in my head, I just purchased a scan of the USN Pilots handbook for the Curtis SC-1. Its not a bible, but here is what I've learned so far. Canopy does not jettison Single, parachute type personal raft is attached to the pilots harness. Stored by the seat bucket. Sea rescue provisions including Mae West life jacket are stored behind the armor head rest, that folds down forward for pilot to access it. There are miscellaneous "loose" provisions, intended for cold weather use, which some is stored at the same compartment Directives on take offs and landings are "canopy open" Regulatory drag efficiency diagrams are related only to the cooling flaps position.

Hubert, we all understand why the canopies are open on approach and take off. You came from guessing to a making solid statements such as " it was found" etc. Can you back it up by any kind of evidence or documentation? Probably not and yet you insist. I provided pictures showing the few facts in contrary to your assumptions. There is a raft sitting on the frame. If you jettison canopy, you most likely loose the raft too. There is a fabric cover, or whatever is left of it, to provide cover of that particular compartment. Bubble canopy of sc-2 has identical volume and shape as the framed one and does not contain the raft pack which was moved to the fuselage. You started with a bunch of assumptions and now you stating what was found, by whom, when? With all due respect I am not buying it. Try to look at these these rhetorical questions. Why was there a cover? How do you access the raft? Why did they moved the raft into the fuselage with the addition of the bubble canopy? And provide me with some solid base to support your argument. I will leave it with that. Carl apologies for polluting your build thread.

Really nice result John. Unusual scheme, clan finish, well done sir. cheers Martin

Now, that’s what I call automotive finish. Blinding Cheers Martin

Philosophy starts by finding the things that are prosaic, utterly mysterious. The only reason to fly with open canopy would be better visibility, that would lead to the new frame-less canopy development and an issued order, "don't do it, so we don't have to cut extra holes into it..." Mom, how we are going to service the raft? And what will happened to the raft once we jettison the canopy that this this is obviously sitting on? Look Mom, fabric covering of the raft access hole, can I rip it for better aerodynamics ? Oh look Mom, the fabric is still on, sucks to serve on Iowa with such prop wash. look Mom no drag to speak about (final phase of landing-drag sensitive). and that's one big propellor Look Mom no additional drag to speak about on the take off either and my canopy has no extra holes. (initial catapult assist take-off)

I can't provide any assurance, only assumptions. However, for some reason, the SC-2 with bubble canopy had an additional/new dinghy hatch on the side of the fuselage. So my question is, with the unframed bubble canopy there was suddenly no need for prop wash phenomena remedy? Having said that , if you look at the color picture in my previous post , the raft bag is sitting right there, blocking the slipstream passage with only oner way to access it.

Slipstream created by propeller is usually dealt with by the angle or the shape of the vertical stabilizer or rather bf trim tab on the rudder. There must be a simple reason, like providing the access for removing the dinghy from its given compartment.