Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> (10/30/90)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> I am building a model Spitfire, and the instruction sheet shows two camouflage schemes. One, dated 1939, has brown and green upper surfaces, black on the port underside, and white on the starboard underside. The other, dated 1940, has duck egg green on the whole underside, and brown and green again on the upper surfaces. But the pattern of green on the upper surfaces is almost an exact mirror image of the pattern used on the 1939 scheme - for example, a patch of green roughly Y shaped on the starboard wing of the 1940 scheme appears on the port wing of the 1939 scheme. I don't think this is a misprint, as I've seen photos of both patterns - in fact, I've seen one photo of several Spitfires in echelon formation, with the first and third aircraft using the 1940 pattern and the second aircraft using the 1939 pattern. What pattern the others had wasn't clear. So, here are the questions. Why did the RAF flip the pattern over? (I presume, in spite of the opinion of any cynics, that it wasn't just to annoy the people who painted the aircraft! :-) And what was the purpose of the black and white underside in early war colour schemes? To help the pilot tell left from right? :-) -- "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
tomoo@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Tomoo Taguchi) (11/01/90)
From: tomoo@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Tomoo Taguchi) I don't know about the mirrored scheme on the upper body, but I recently read "Piece of Cake" by Derek Robinson which explained the underside paint scheme. At the beginning of the war, Fighter Command used the black and white scheme to make the planes more visible to ground troops. As the war progressed they realized that being invisible was better than being visible to "friendly" flak gunners (who tended to shoot at anything at flew anyway), so they switched to the robin's egg blue scheme. BTW, "Piece of Cake" is an excellent book about the first years of WWII for a RAF fighter squadron. I read the book after watching the television adaptation on Masterpiece Theater. The show was good even though they used Spitfires rather than Hurricanes (probably due to the availability of flyable Spitfires). Both the book and the show paint a different picture from the popular idea of the few gallant fighter pilots who stopped Hitler's invasion plans.
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (11/01/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) *>So, here are the questions. Why did the RAF flip the pattern over? (I *>presume, in spite of the opinion of any cynics, that it wasn't just to *>annoy the people who painted the aircraft! :-) And what was the purpose *>of the black and white underside in early war colour schemes? To help *>the pilot tell left from right? :-) Hmmm... would the plans be showing two different color schemes for the bottom of the plane? I've seen some model airplane plans that do this: show one color scheme on one half of the aircraft and another on the other half. I've even seen them draw the top on one half and the bottom on the other half! I don't ever recall seeing a spitfire with a half-black and half-white underside, or even a black one for that matter. The mirror image problem is interesting! I would never have noticed. How were the patterns painted? Were big masks or templates used? Who did the painting? Did every factoory use the same patterns, and how much do these patterns differ from plane to plane? How do these pa- tterns differ for the different airplanes? Did hurricanes use the same scheme? How about bombers? Also interesting: at what point in time did Fighter Command switch over to the grey/green camouflage seen on the later Marks? Color schemes also varied with theater: Spitfires based in North Africa and in Asia had different color schemes than those used by Fighter Command in Europe. The ones in Asia (South East Asian Command?) even had different markings: blue circles with a white circle superimposed - basically the roundel with the red missing. The idea, I think, was to avoid confusion with Japanese markings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !
thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) (11/06/90)
From: thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) In article <1990Nov1.023053.9665@cbnews.att.com> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) writes: > >Command in Europe. The ones in Asia (South East Asian Command?) >even had different markings: blue circles with a white circle >superimposed - basically the roundel with the red missing. The >idea, I think, was to avoid confusion with Japanese markings. I always thought that the Blue/White roundels were because they were RAAF 'planes, although the RAAF squadrons in Europe and the desert did use normal roundels. Any experts care to comment? On a more literary note, A Piece Of Cake is extremely good at getting across just how young the fighter pilots were, and how much stress they were under. Derek Robinson has written other books, notably "Goshawk Squadron" and "Kramer's War", the first about an RCF sqn in France, WWI, and the second about a US B24 aircrew member who is washed up on Jersey (the only piece of Britain occupied by the Germans) after being shot down. "Goshawk Squadron" is good at showing the technical limitations of early aerial combat ie. before the introduction of interrupter gear for the machine guns. >Iskandar Taib On a further note, I have been trying to get a copy of a book by Elleston Trevor called "Squadron Airborne", which also shows some of the squadron life from the ground staff view. Does anyone know if the book is available new anywhere? I can't seem to get it in Australia. -- thos cohen |Softway Pty Ltd English is a living language, but |ACSnet: thos@softway.oz "Simple illiteracy is no basis for |UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos for linguistic evolution" - Dwight MacDonald |Internet: thos@softway.oz.au