Hawk 75 Royal Thai Air Force cannon pods
- Thread starter elbmc1969
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
If it's correct that the Thai air force removed the cannon from their Hawks after allying with Japan, it ended up as a devil's bargain when the United States began heavy bomber raids. Do you want enough performance to have a hope of catching the Liberators, or enough firepower to do something to them?
- Thread starter
- #24
Interesting. That has the gun mounted on its side, which explains the different location of the ejection port compared to the D.XXI. (The Madsens generally fed from the bottom on the left side, so the belt made a 180 degree hairpin turn.)
Thanks for posting this.
Notice that the perforations in the shroud are offset on the "bottom" and the side toward us, so the number of openings visible in a side photo will be different depending on whether the gun and shroud are upright or mounted on their sides. It may be possible to mount the shroud in any of 4 orientations 90 degrees apart. (So that you don't need to figure out "up" the way you do with a USB-A plug.)
- Thread starter
- #27
Any particular search term you used to come up with these?
No I didn't.. just the "curtiss hawk 75n" and "rtaf curtiss hawk 75n"
Also found these ... it seems that't the same kite before coating with the camo colours and attaching of the gun pods.
the source: the net.
wingnuts
Airman 1st Class
A brief history of the RTAF in WW2. Why the Royal Thai Air Force Both Fought and Supported America During World War II
- Thread starter
- #31
Yep, it's a fascinating story. And people make fun of the Italians for switching sides after 3 years! The Thais gave up fighting after a few hours and allied with the Japanese after 6 days!
(Yes, the agreement on the 14th was both secret and limited. Blah, blah, blah.)
(Yes, the agreement on the 14th was both secret and limited. Blah, blah, blah.)
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #34
I'm pretty sure this is the hatch on the right wing:
View attachment 640665
The one on the left wing appears to be damaged (a bent corner, at least), which makes it much more visible.
There's a very, very vague indication of a panel line on the leading edge of the right wing, but that may well be an artifact, a bit of paint damage that happens to be in about the right place, or something else irrelevant. There are good odds that one with has a locally-fabricated replacement, possibly as part of the restoration to get the aircraft ready for the museum, or was repaired with panels from another aircraft, or got non-identical spare parts from Curtiss. Not much of a way to know.
Peter De Jong (the photographer) identifies this aircraft as Kh11*/* Manufacturer's Serial # 12763, which is in the range identified by Bowers in Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947.
=======================
I just realized that the aircraft only has one gunport in the cowling ...
View attachment 640665
The one on the left wing appears to be damaged (a bent corner, at least), which makes it much more visible.
There's a very, very vague indication of a panel line on the leading edge of the right wing, but that may well be an artifact, a bit of paint damage that happens to be in about the right place, or something else irrelevant. There are good odds that one with has a locally-fabricated replacement, possibly as part of the restoration to get the aircraft ready for the museum, or was repaired with panels from another aircraft, or got non-identical spare parts from Curtiss. Not much of a way to know.
Peter De Jong (the photographer) identifies this aircraft as Kh11*/* Manufacturer's Serial # 12763, which is in the range identified by Bowers in Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947.
=======================
I just realized that the aircraft only has one gunport in the cowling ...
- Thread starter
- #35
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
My wife. She doesn't, however, read or write English.
It's an ongoing struggle.
It's an ongoing struggle.
A book on the Hawk 75 family had just been published by European Airways (a Norwegian publisher of eclectic aviation books, europeanairlines.no). It was written by historian Dan Hagedorn and Amaru Tincopa 'Curtiss Design 75 Hawk'.
There is a whole chapter on the Thai examples. I did the artwork for the book and concluded the gun packs on the museum example are rough mock-ups that don't really resemble the originals. Unfortunately all I could do was sketch by eye a close match based on photos. I thought the gun pod wasn't as deep as the museum example and the contour was flatter on the bottom of the pod (in side view).
Another point of warning…the story goes that the colours on the museum aircraft were USAF SEA camo paints and don't have any resemblance to the original scheme… however, as to the actual colours the aircraft were painted is whole other quagmire.
Juanita
There is a whole chapter on the Thai examples. I did the artwork for the book and concluded the gun packs on the museum example are rough mock-ups that don't really resemble the originals. Unfortunately all I could do was sketch by eye a close match based on photos. I thought the gun pod wasn't as deep as the museum example and the contour was flatter on the bottom of the pod (in side view).
Another point of warning…the story goes that the colours on the museum aircraft were USAF SEA camo paints and don't have any resemblance to the original scheme… however, as to the actual colours the aircraft were painted is whole other quagmire.
Juanita
- Thread starter
- #38
Is the book in Norwegian? (The web site is down, so I can't check.)
How many pages is the chapter on the Thai Hawks?
Does it have a conclusion on the caliber of the cannon (20mm or 23mm)?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Thailand purchased 12 Hawk 75Ns from Curtiss.
From the factory, they were equipped with two 7.62mm MGs and two 23mm Madsen cannon.
From the factory, they were equipped with two 7.62mm MGs and two 23mm Madsen cannon.
- Thread starter
- #40
Could you specify your source for this? Does it specify which 7.62mm MGs they were (manufacturer and model)?
