mhaselden

Thanks Dave. I may look into getting that. If you find anything in the specials, please do let me know. Thanks for those details AWFK10. Who'da thunked that the Sqn would employ single letter and single number identifiers at the same time. I'd have put money on it being one or the other (which means I'd have lost some dosh, I s'pose). I'll probably have to dig out the Operations Record Book to see if it has any clues as to the flight to which James Gamble was assigned, although that may be a long shot. I may just have to settle for a plain-Jane Brisfit with just the serial number...which leads to the next interesting piece of info you provided. I'd seen reports that F6131 was a rebuild so presumably the marking of the serial number is open to debate. Military regularity might suggest the Sqn would ensure all its aircraft were marked the same way but we all know that simply isn't the case, certainly not in operational environments. Small world, huh? I do hope to uncover more details of his life but, sadly, we've lost touch with that side of the family. James' brother, George, was in the Rifle Brigade during WW1, serving first in France and then Salonika. He enlisted on 2 Sep 14 and rose through the ranks to Sgt before being selected for commissioning which duly happened in July 1917 (not bad for a lad born in a 2-up/2-down in the industrial northwest of England). He went back to France in Aug 17 but lost his life on 24 Sep during an attack by German soldiers on his trench. We're just coming up to the centenary of his death. I'm just glad I found out these details about my relatives (my great-grandmother was a sister to William Gamble, father of James and George). Thanks all for the inputs gents. Great info as always. I truly appreciate all the insights...and it makes me glad I focus on WW2 'cos research into 1914-1918 is far more difficult (IMHO). Cheers, Mark

So...having changed the topic title, I was wondering if anyone out there has info on 11 Sqn markings during the late WW1 period so that I might build a model of Bristol F.2B F6131 that my relative flew on 17 October 1918? The few photos I've seen online for 11 Sqn Brisfits show standard PC10/natural linen for the fabric areas and national markings with white surrounds for the upper wing and fuselage roundels. The key question is whether 11 Sqn retained the unit markings seen on photos taken in 1917 such as these below into late 1918: Clearly, there are differences between these 2 airframes possibly regarding the colour of the engine cowling but definitely in terms of airframe identification (one having an individual letter and the other a number). Are there any references that might explain the change from numbers to letters (or vice-versa) and whether the Sqn markings of 2 diagonal stripes were continued into late 1918? Any info/suggestions would be gratefully received. Many thanks, Mark

Actually, that's a great amount of help. I had the airfield assignments up to and including Bethancourt but not beyond. The details about correct rank definitions is also helpful, as is the additional details on his assignments. I did find one pointer to an accident he was involved in on 17 October 1917 when the engine of his Bristol Fighter (serial F6131) failed and he force-landed near Inchy during a recce mission to Le Cateau. His observer on this occasion was Sgt Mech E C Taylor. Sadly, photos of 11 Sqn Bristol Fighters seem pretty thin on the ground so it's tough to know how this specific airframe was marked.

****Changes the Topic Title because of information provided/discovered that help with many of my previous questions. I'm retaining the original posts for reference but changing the focus onto aircraft markings**** This is more "real aviation" than aircraft modelling, but given the focus on WWI I thought it better to post here in hopes one of the cognoscenti here might be able to help. I recently discovered that a relative, James Gamble (a cousin of my Grandmother), served in the RFC and RAF 1915-1918. The very limited records I've found contain the following: Service Number: 3594 Enlistment Date: 4 Feb 1915 Ranks and Promotions: 4 Feb 15 - 2/am (presume that's Airman Second Class?) 1 Jun 16 - 1/am (presume that's Airman First Class?) 1 Jul 16 - Acting Cpl 1 Oct 16 - Cpl (substantive) 1 Jan 17 - Acting Sgt 1 Jul 17 - Sgt (substantive) 1 Apr 18 - Transferred to RAF as "Sergt. Mech" Trade Classification: Initially "Turner" but then he remustered from Sgt Mech to Sgt Pilot on 30 June 1918. Postings: 31 May 18 - from 2 Group to 8 TS (presumably 8 Training Squadron at Witney) 3 Jul 18 - from 8 TS to 1 FS (presumably 1 Flying School at Farnborough) 13 Jul 18 - from 1 FS to 1 SAG (R) (presumably 1 School of Air Gunnery) 7 Sep 18 - from 1 SAG (R) to 11 Sqn (embarked to France 7 Sep 18, at which time I believe 11 Sqn was flying Bristol Fighters) 31 Jul 19 - from 11 Sqn to RAF Depot P See (?) 20 Sep 19 - from RAF Depot P See (?) to RAF Halton 18 Oct 19 - Transferred to RAF E Reserve 9 Apr 21 - Recalled from Reserve 12 Apr 21 - From E Reserve to Henlow Reserve Pool 4 Jun 21 - Transferred to RAF E Reserve 3 Feb 23 - Discharged I'm keen to learn more about where he served. Sadly, I can find nothing for the period 4 Feb 15 thru 31 May 18 in terms of units or locations but his service was presumably all in the UK because the only embarkation record is for his posting to 11 Sqn on 7 Sep 18. Clearly the 11 Sqn ORB would be a good place to start (if anybody has a digital copy for the period of his service with 11 Sqn I'd be hugely grateful!). I believe the Sqn was based at Le Quesnoy at the time James Gamble joined the Sqn. From there, the Sqn moved to Vert Galand on 19 Sep 1918, Mory on 15 Oct 1918 and then Bethencourt on 1 Nov 1918. Also, can anyone advise what and where RAF Depot P See might have been? Any and all insights would be most welcome. Many thanks, Mark

Claudio, I would agree with your assessment. Just because the 3 Albacores were transferred to 36 Sqn on 12 Dec 41 does not mean they were sitting in crates until that time. During 1941 several airfields, including Seletar and Tengah were used as storage parks for aircraft that had been erected by 151 MU but were awaiting allocation to units or being held as a strategic reserve. That said, the FAA presence in Singapore was pretty minimal, largely centred on the Walruses operating off the larger warships so any usage of the Albacores prior to December would probably be limited to test flights and the occasional comms/transport flight. I would tend to agree that retaining standard FAA camouflage is the more likely scenario, although any attempt to draw parallels with camouflage schemes from Coastal Command or UK-based aircraft should be treated with extreme caution since overseas theatres had some latitude in how to camouflage and mark their aircraft. I'll dig out my copy of "Glory in Chaos" which may have some additional nuggets of info about the Albacores not published in other works. Keep your fingers crossed. Cheers, Mark

Photos of Vildebeests in Singapore are rare and we've yet to obtain ANY confirmed details of the camouflage colours. Photos of Albacores in Singapore are non-existing so we're purely in the realm of speculation as to camouflage and markings. It would make sense that they carried Type B upperwing roundels, with Type A1 on the fuselage and rectangular Type A fin flashes. Pretty much any other details are highly debatable, to include whether they had underwing roundels (if they did, most likely Type A) or wore unit codes. As to camouflage, they could have been repainted to match the Vildebeests or they could have retained FAA camouflage. Undersides of Vildebeests were originally black but at least some were repainted in a light-toned shade, perhaps similar to Sky Blue like the 27 Sqn Blenheims in that theatre...which means we have at least 2 if not 3 options for the underside colour. Sorry I can't be more help but I'm afraid that's pretty much all we have on Vildebeests in Singapore. My recommendation would be to use a best-value judgement and hold to the fact that you're building a representation of an aircraft flown by some incredibly courageous men...and leave it at that without striving for a degree of accuracy that's unlikely ever to be confirmed.

I'm with you on all that, Graham. Also, to my eyes (old and feeble though they are becoming), it appears the ailerons are configured for a roll to starboard, which is exactly the opposite of what I'd expect if the gun panels were removed from the starboard wing. I'd have thought the pilot would be banking to port to lift the draggy, reduced-lift starboard wing. Hadn't noticed what may be a P-in-a-circle prototype marking on the fuselage aft of the roundel. It's a pretty pixelated scan so I'm far from certain that I'm seeing it correctly. If this is a trial, I'm struggling to understand why it would be done off a carrier rather than on land where the environment can be controlled a little better. Replacement panels that are a different tone to the surrounding wing remains the most logical explanation.

Concur. With most of the wing's lift being generated from the thicker section of the wing, trying to take off without the gun bay covers would be a non-starter.

Great to see these pics back, Alex. How about a few more with updates? Yep...I'm greedy!

That's a relief (that Nick is ok far more so than the blog is back online).

Jamie, If you have his postal address, maybe you could find a phone number and try giving him a call? It's clear there are many of us here in Britmodeller Land who are concerned about him. Just a suggestion. Fully understand if you're not comfortable doing it, though. Cheers, Mark

I think we've already devoted far too much effort, and created too many posts, about Brushpainter. Sadly, Nick is still MIA. I've reached out to him but not received a response. I truly hope he's ok.

They are almost certainly sandbags filled with concrete. Check out this link for some interesting, but more recent, pics also taken at Coltishall: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1021425 If you scroll down to the bottom of the page (you may need to select "Load More"), you'll find a couple of nice close-up pics of a dispersal wall and an individual concrete-filled sandbag. Cheers, Mark

Dancho has posted on this forum before. Back in December 2016 he initiated a vitriolic rant early in a discussion on Buffalo colours: I corresponded with him via private message and it turned out he was assuming that I was trying to sell a book and so being deliberately evasive in my answers. In truth, I was simply articulating the many unknowns related to the particular subject. Dan has a personal gripe with what he perceives as people "withholding" information so they can sell the same info in a book. There is much of the same vitriol in his blog about Nick. Like others on this forum, I've always found Nick eager to share information. What he definitely will NOT do is tell anyone how to paint or finish their model. Maybe that's the primary gripe in the nasty blog post - Dan has to do some thinking or research for himself or (shock, horror) actually pay for research materials that individuals like Nick have compiled by personal study of primary source material?

Ed, I don't think it's colourised. I know the guy who posted these images. He's the son of an AVG pilot and has access to some incredible colour images. Cheers, Mark