F.24 5"/8" focal lens aerial camera

[MiTasol]

The rest
Enjoy

 

[Kingscoy]

Hi Mi,
Excellent scans....these will make the whole file more then complete.
Many thanks for sharing!!!!

Now for me the next quest....finding a Type 25 mounting
Cheers,
Sander

 

[MiTasol]

Hi Mi,
Now for me the next quest....finding a Type 25 mounting
Cheers,
Sander

My pleasure and it is a small thanks to the forum for the manuals it has provided me

I will try and get you some photos of my two type 25 mountings - both broken but I hope to create one complete unit.
They may have some other info on them that assists your search or you may be able to post them to other places and get the bits and pieces to build one up

 

[Kingscoy]

That would be great. many thanks!!

 

[sandokan]

wow great!!!!!!! Thank you!

 

[MiTasol]

That would be great. many thanks!!

I should have said this may take a while - it is spring in Aus and I have a large (lethal) black snake in my workshop store area. I had a snake catcher remove one last autumn (fall) and two weeks later I had another. When the snake catcher came back and took it away he said it was the same one. They are territorial and Queensland law is he must release it not more than 10 km from here. He took it a different direction for release and I believe it is the same one and has come back again despite the electronic and chemical snake repellents I installed.
Instead of wasting money on its capture and next holiday/vacation I am waiting to catch it in the open where I can help it multiply (into several pieces).
In the mean time I do not dare go to the shelving that it was last seen disappearing in to.

 

[Kingscoy]

I should have said this may take a while - it is spring in Aus and I have a large (lethal) black snake in my workshop store area. I had a snake catcher remove one last autumn (fall) and two weeks later I had another. When the snake catcher came back and took it away he said it was the same one. They are territorial and Queensland law is he must release it not more than 10 km from here. He took it a different direction for release and I believe it is the same one and has come back again despite the electronic and chemical snake repellents I installed.
Instead of wasting money on its capture and next holiday/vacation I am waiting to catch it in the open where I can help it multiply (into several pieces).
In the mean time I do not dare go to the shelving that it was last seen disappearing in to.

No hurry....I would say....be careful and as one Arnold S would say.....If it bleeds we can kill it

 

[MiTasol]

No hurry....I would say....be careful and as one Arnold S would say.....If it bleeds we can kill it

If the local old timers are right the snake will have vacated the store area because I now have music playing loudly all day and have doused the floor with citronella and eucalyptus oils.
I got access to one of the mounts today and here are a few photos - some are a bit repetitive but I was trying not to miss anything of use to you. The other mount is in a box that is near the bottom of the stack and I am only working down very slowly. As the saying goes my religion is coward and I am confirmed.
I do not know what sort of a rail the mount sits on in a Spitfire but it is probably something similar to the Beaufort one

 

[Kingscoy]

Hi Mi,
Again many thanks...Super photo's...they will help me certainly If I can share anything in return just let me know.

Cheers,
Sander

 

[MiTasol]

Hi Sander

Just home and I was able to get a good look at an undamaged complete mounting on my last trip and I was given permission to photograph it.

Stupidly I only took photos of the parts I am missing off mine. What I thought were missing labels are missing spirit levels. As you can see the two levels are totally different. No thought given to a single unit simplifying manufacture and repair.

Mi

 

[Kingscoy]

Hi Mi,
Excellent photo's I must say it is indeed a complex piece of kit. Regretably I didn't find a mounting yet. Also working on a quite puzzling problem. The early camera installment in a Spitfire was in the inner ammobox compartment with no blisters to the underside of the wing. But when I measure the total depth of the ammobox compartment it is not able to hold a F.24 camera with either the 5 inch or 8 inch lens. Makes me wonder if there were lenses with a shorter length. Didn't find such shorter lenses in the manual though....Or I'm measuring wrong......

Cheers,
Sander

 

[Kingscoy]

This is the photo which shows the installment of the camera in the wing of Spitfire N3071. Source:IWM.

 

[Kingscoy]

The ammobox hatch clearly vissible. The hatch would have been opened up for the lens.

 

[MiTasol]

The early camera instalment in a Spitfire was in the inner ammobox compartment with no blisters to the underside of the wing. But when I measure the total depth of the ammobox compartment it is not able to hold a F.24 camera with either the 5 inch or 8 inch lens. Makes me wonder if there were lenses with a shorter length. Didn't find such shorter lenses in the manual though....Or I'm measuring wrong......

Cheers,
Sander

According to Allied Cameras the F-24 came with four lenses, 5 inch, 8 inch, 14 inch, and 20 inch

RE the Spitfire wing install they say
The PR Mk IA was the mark of the first two Spitfires converted for photographic reconnaissance for RAF service, they were handed over to the Heston Flight on the 30th Oct 1939. Two F.24 5in focal length cameras were placed in the wings in place of the guns, both were mounted in the vertical position. One of these aircraft became the first Spitfire to operate overseas when it joined the British Forces in France in November 1939, flying the first reconnaissance sortie on the 8th of that month over Aachen (the weather prevented her pilot from taking any useful pictures). The two PR Mk IA's were later converted to the PR Mk IC standard.

The PR Mk IB was an up-grade to the PR Mk IA. The cameras were fitted with newer 8inch focal length lenses. Also, an extra 29 gallon fuel tank was installed behind the pilot. This version was first used on 10 February 1940 when it took photographs of the German naval bases at Wilhelmshaven and Emden.

They may have photos or other information that would help you

 

[MiTasol]

This is the photo which shows the instalment of the camera in the wing of Spitfire N3071. Source:IWM.

Good clear photo of both the Type 24 mount and Spitfire wing structure

 

[Kingscoy]

Hi Mi,
The photo of the underside of the wing I took at Duxford this year. Also got a small 1942 pocket memorandum for operating the F.24 camera system. I will digitise it and post it here. Will be somewhere next week I think as I'm off for work all this week.

 

[Airframes]

Seem rather odd that there would not be even a small blister beneath the wing. Even with the shortest lens possible, that lens would still need to 'see' out of the wing which, if mounted for oblique use, would mean that it would need to be clear of the edge of any aperture.
I have a photo of a short focal length lens camera (I think F24) beneath a Spitfire wing, which shows a fairly shallow blister, to allow the lens to be positioned correctly.

 

[Kingscoy]

Hi Terry,
I might have found my answer. Attached a photo I just found of a F.24 with a shorter lenght 5 or 8 inch lens. This length would have fit within the standard ammobox dimensions. But I'm interested to see your photo

"My" Spitfire N3069 was converted in a PR IB. But I'm not sure if this conversion incorporated a small blister to house a bigger lens. But installment was purely vertical.

Cheers Sander

 

[Airframes]

Here's the photo, with the original caption, from the classic Harleyford book "Spitfire, Story of a Famous Fighter".
As you can see, even with a shorter lens, the camera / lens would still need to be able to 'see' from the aperture, and unless there is even a very shallow blister, I wouldn't think this would be possible.
On the Mosquito, the rear facing 'strike' camera got around the problem, by using a reflection system. The camera was mounted in the fuselage, above a flush-fitting hatch, and although vertical shots, at altitude, were not a problem, the mount, and hatch, would not allow oblique shots, unless the camera either protruded from the hatch, or a blister was included, to allow the lens to be below the level of the aircraft's skin.
The problem was solved by angling the camera, to 'shoot' into a pair of mirrors, rather like a periscope arrangement, so that the final mirror, angled to 'look' aft, produced a right-reading image of the target area to the rear.
This would not be possible in a Spitfire wing, so I'm fairly certain that there must have been some sort of blister, unless the camera 'shot' at a very shallow angle, through an elongated aperture, which I don't think was the case.
If I get some 'spare' time, I'll have a look through my references, and see if I can find anything on the early PR Spit camera arrangements.

 

[Kingscoy]

Attached a PDF of a 1942 Pocket Memorandum for Air Photography.
Merry Christmas and a fantastic 2017