Malcolm Hood Inst'l AAF in ETO

Bill, I think I might have the information hidden deep in my Burtonwood references somewhere.
It might take some time to find, as I'm rather stiff and in pain at the moment, but from memory, initial fitting was done at BAD 1 Burtonwood and/or Warton, before being 'passed on' to local (i.e Unit) level. Certainly some conversions of P-47 from 'Razorback' to ' Bubbletop' appear to have been undertaken at BAD1, although I think these were relatively few.
I'll try to find the info over the next few days, given I can get my body to behave !

Thanks Terry - BAD1 Burtonwood was theoretically B-17 and P-47 whilst BAD2 Warton was B-24 and P-51 but there are references to Burtonwood for the 85 gallon tank installation also.

Hi Bill,

This was the weekend after our annual airshow and there wasn't a single Hinton around the museum today. I'll ask when they get back.

Thanks, Greg.

For what it is worth I am seriously thinking about a Mustang for Nerd's type book where all or most of the FAQ's can be answered. This is one of many that have nagged me and unfortunately not until all my crew chief buddies have passed.

RAF Malcolm Hood.



Neil.

Neil - thank you. By any chance do you have access to the 7 December 1942 report AFDU/3/20/33 detailing the installation of the 'sliding hood' (i.e. Malcolm Hood) on Mustang IA AG618 fitted at Henlow?

Sorry drgondog, no. I would expect it would be at the National Archive. I will try to remember next time I visit.

Neil.

Bill, I've had a brief look, but my wrists are so stiff, I'm finding it difficult to hold the books and files!
I'll do a more detailed search when things improve, but if I can't find the info, then I have the address/contact details for Aldon P Ferguson, who is the UK 'chairman' of the Burtonwood Association, and author of a couple of books on the history and work of Burtonwood and its associated 'out stations' - if all else fails, he may be able to help, as he's possibly the authority on the work of the BADs. Just let me know if you'd like the details, and I'll forward them on to you.
Meanwhile, I do recall reading recently, about detachments sent to individual FGs ( I believe from either BAD 1 or BAD 2) to fit, and advise on fitting, of the canopies, supplied in 'kit form', and this might have been in the book on the 'Blue Noses', published last year, by one of our members. From memory, these were fitted in order of priority - for example Squadron, Flight and Element leaders, with the remainder of Squadron/Group aircraft having them fitted as supplies became available.
Again, I'll check it out when I'm fitter, hopefully in the not too distant future !

could it be a case of.. that was the place where they were initially fitted so all the kinks were worked out and the SD..service directive and instructions were drafted which was later sent to the individual units for them to do on site. ???

Airframes said:

Bill, I've had a brief look, but my wrists are so stiff, I'm finding it difficult to hold the books and files!
I'll do a more detailed search when things improve, but if I can't find the info, then I have the address/contact details for Aldon P Ferguson, who is the UK 'chairman' of the Burtonwood Association, and author of a couple of books on the history and work of Burtonwood and its associated 'out stations' - if all else fails, he may be able to help, as he's possibly the authority on the work of the BADs. Just let me know if you'd like the details, and I'll forward them on to you.

Thank you Terry - time and health permitting I would appreciate the details

Meanwhile, I do recall reading recently, about detachments sent to individual FGs ( I believe from either BAD 1 or BAD 2) to fit, and advise on fitting, of the canopies, supplied in 'kit form', and this might have been in the book on the 'Blue Noses', published last year, by one of our members. From memory, these were fitted in order of priority - for example Squadron, Flight and Element leaders, with the remainder of Squadron/Group aircraft having them fitted as supplies became available.
Again, I'll check it out when I'm fitter, hopefully in the not too distant future !

Click to expand...

I agree the remarks re: Priority and anecdotally that kits were installed at the local Fighter Group base Service Group/Squadron - just can't details confirming the 'what I heard' statements in the past.

Hi Bill,

I spoke with Steve Hinton and he did not know where the Malcolm Hoods were done in WWII, but says it is a LOT of work. The original canopy opens sideways and the Malcolm Hood opens fore-and-aft, so you have to change all the canopy structure aft of the windscreen. He also said it makes the P-51 fly sort of weird when compared with a stock P-51's canopy, and that a stock unit such as Boise Bee flies noticeably better than a Malcolm Hood unit, probably turbulence around the fin area from the Hood bulge.

So, no real answer but some of the labor hours are explained anyway. I had not considered that the entire canopy structure would have to be removed and refitted as I never really thought about it before and all the pics I have seen of a Malcolm Hood were airborne with the canopy closed ... so, no real indication of how it opened for me to notice. I'm not sure I would have noticed it anyway as it isn't one of the P-51 features I usually look for beyond basic notice of whether it is a turtledeck or a bubble model and whether it has the dorsal or not. If a turtledeck, I then look for the airscoop to see whether it is an Allison or a Merlin unit.

Interesting and some food for thought. I wonder why they didn't come up with a Malcolm Hood that would just fit into the existing canopy structure?

GregP said:

Hi Bill,

I spoke with Steve Hinton and he did not know where the Malcolm Hoods were done in WWII, but says it is a LOT of work. The original canopy opens sideways and the Malcolm Hood opens fore-and-aft, so you have to change all the canopy structure aft of the windscreen. He also said it makes the P-51 fly sort of weird when compared with a stock P-51's canopy, and that a stock unit such as Boise Bee flies noticeably better than a Malcolm Hood unit, probably turbulence around the fin area from the Hood bulge.

Thanks Greg for reaching out to Steve.. it is conceivably turbulence but absent a wind tunnel test would be hard to say with certainty. I talked with Bill Lyons and a couple others today and they couldn't confirm the same impression but did state that the Hood 'seemed to bulge slightly' in a high speed dive indicating a lift condition which could also precede separation behind it.

So, no real answer but some of the labor hours are explained anyway. I had not considered that the entire canopy structure would have to be removed and refitted as I never really thought about it before and all the pics I have seen of a Malcolm Hood were airborne with the canopy closed ... so, no real indication of how it opened for me to notice. I'm not sure I would have noticed it anyway as it isn't one of the P-51 features I usually look for beyond basic notice of whether it is a turtledeck or a bubble model and whether it has the dorsal or not. If a turtledeck, I then look for the airscoop to see whether it is an Allison or a Merlin unit.

As the Hood must slide back as well as mate forward and seal properly the, old canopy must be removed, the inner structure at the top of the cockpit for canopy support has to be modified to accept the two external rails that the Hood will slide on, the rails have to be installed and aligned with the new Hood when it arrives (I should think). The radio mast is removed and a whip antenna installed so the Hood can slide over it. The manufacturing process and QA for the Hood itself to mold it over the form, trim properly and fit into a jig to enable the canopy rail to properly mate the destiny external canopy rail on the Mustang - at least 'good enough' so that the Malcolm Hood with rail/sliding hardware can be mounted and tested for fit before final attachment is made on the external cockpit bracket.. the windscreen also has a gasket/seal attached to accept the Hood in forward and locked position...

Interesting and some food for thought. I wonder why they didn't come up with a Malcolm Hood that would just fit into the existing canopy structure?

Click to expand...

See above. A Hood that rotated rather than slide begs a lot of questions regarding stiffness and retained latching properties - yet still enable rapid exit...

Bill, I've now managed to search through all of my references for BAD 1 Burtonwood and BAD 2 Warton, plus their respective 'out stations', and haven't found any reference to P-51 canopy modifications. There was, however, some info on manufacture and modification of P-47 canopies, mainly for 9th Air Force, which is possibly what I was thinking off originally.
However, a mention of the Honnington Depot prompted me to search elsewhere, and I found a very brief snippet referring to the fitting of the 'Malcom' hood, but no further details. This, together with other brief 'annecdotal' accounts in a couple of books, leads me to suspect that the hoods were originally supplied in kit form, and delivered and fitted in small batches by 'work parties' from Malcolm's, with the work eventually being undertaken by 'Service Teams', possibly from Honnington, after 'tuition' by the teams from Malcom's, assisting 'local' personnel at Unit and Group level, as well as at Honnington itself.
The fitting (of the canopy kits) involved the removal of the starboard side 'fixed' central canopy panel and its associated jettison equipment and latches, along with the hinged top panel, and hinged port-side 'entry' panel and latches, and all associated channels, seating and locking latches etc etc.
Mounting plates and 'stops' for the (external) slide rails were then fitted direct to the fuselage/cockpit external sill, the canopy mounted on the rails, and the rail 'cover plates' attached, along with the relevant canopy locking latch(es) and jettison handle and wires, with the radio antenna mast also being removed, the antenna and 'trim' wiring re-routed, and a 'whip' aerial fitted, further aft, clear of the canopy in its open position, offset to starboard.
So, as already mentioned, quite an involved and lengthy process for each canopy fitted.
I'm fairly sure I have a few more brief items of info, spread over a number of books and, if or when I find out more, I'll let you know.
I don't know if the Burtonwood contacts I have will be able to assist further, but, if nothing else, perhaps they may be able to 'point you in the right direction' in order to discover more, and I'll forward the contact details for both the UK and USA contacts in the next day or two, via PM.
Please bear in mind, however, that the last addresses I have for them are from the early 1990's, and may not be current any longer, if, indeed, both men are still with us.
Hope this helps at least a little bit !

GregP said:

Hi Bill,

I spoke with Steve Hinton and he did not know where the Malcolm Hoods were done in WWII, but says it is a LOT of work. The original canopy opens sideways and the Malcolm Hood opens fore-and-aft, so you have to change all the canopy structure aft of the windscreen. He also said it makes the P-51 fly sort of weird when compared with a stock P-51's canopy, and that a stock unit such as Boise Bee flies noticeably better than a Malcolm Hood unit, probably turbulence around the fin area from the Hood bulge.

Click to expand...

I hadn't realized the Mustang didn't use a sliding canopy; that would indeed make it a problem. I knew the P-38 and P-39 used different arrangements, but they already had fairly good all-around visibility. Pretty much any other USAAF or USN fighter (and many of the single engine bombers) would have been easier to adapt to a hood. It's actually a bit ironic they went to the Mustang was among the more notable conversions. (both the Spitfire and Hurricane should have been much easier to adapt as well)

That also makes the redesign for the P-51D's bubble canopy a bit more sensible (ie retooling for the hood wouldn't have been dramatically simpler if at all), though it does make he wonder if using hoods on the P-47 would have made more sense in terms of expediting production, overall flight characteristics, weight, and actual visibility for the pilot. (and, of course, the P-40N did standardize a frameless hood, albeit not bulged)

The bubble canopy was a sliding canopy, but the A-36, P-5A, B, and C weren't.

GregP said:

The bubble canopy was a sliding canopy, but the A-36, P-5A, B, and C weren't.

Click to expand...

Yes, my point was that the amount of work/retooling at the factories for shifting from Turtleback to Bubbletop configruation may not have been that far from the changes required to accommodate a sliding hood on the P-51. On the other hand, the likes of the P-40, P-47, a good deal of Navy aircraft, and of course both the Hurricane and Spitfire used sliding canopies and would have been more straightforward to modify in the field and on the production lines.

just got this from Jim Anderson...Bud's son. I had asked him if his father remembered anything about his 51 with the Malcom:

Dale, he says his mustangs had the birdcage canopy and his 3rd B model had the macolm hood installed at Leiston Field. Hope this helps, Jim

now if i can find a crew chief who is still living i may be able to get details....i am working on that but do not know how successful i will be. had this subject come up a year ago it would have been easier...

Actually, Koolkitty, you are correct for the Malcolm Hood, assuming it came off the assembly line. The work to change over to bubble canopies on the P-51 from P-51B/C to D/K was more. Time consuming in a one-time changeover, but pretty easy to do all in all.