PR Hurricane Colours - Middle East

[chaddy]

Edit: Mark slipped in his reply while I was writing this, but what the heck, I'll leave it.

I don't read it that way. More like, he's not satisfied with the other explanations, and no one has yet refuted (successfully) his own interpretation. I was about to bring up the radiator housing when he did- notice that the front part seems lighter- has it curved inward enough to catch the light, while further back is in shadow? Or has it caught oil, so is now "painted" dusty light color?

I tried to do the suggested experiment of making one of the images a negative, to compare oil stain patterns and effect on aft fuselage, but either I don't have the software or don't know that I DO have the capability!

I find it very unlikely that the port gear door and radiator would be topside dark colour, while the underside of the wing and possibly the aft fuselage would be painted a light colour.

Would someone please post the colour photos taken at the same time?

PR aircraft used a blue/red roundel, which was less visible than the standard (fuselage side) one with white and yellow rings.

bob

Well, with greatest respect to Mark and yourself, equally he has not refuted any of the counter suggestions made to his "reading" of the photograph. Obviously his opinion carries no greater or lesser weight than the opinion of anybody else.

Like Graham, I have difficulty in envisiging a lighting situation that could yield the results Mark insists on. Also it depends heavily on other factors all being "right" i.e. staining, oil deposits, dust etc.

To play the devil's advocate for a minute, you say you can see no reasoning why different components of the aircraft would be painted different colours. Nether can I...if it it were done intentionally. It might be a case of necessity that parts of other (differently painted) aircraft have had to be utilised, or indeed that those parts given a "quick once over" in the field are becoming worn, exposing underlying paintwork.

I wish I could explain the exact process but I've had a look at that roundel in Photoshop, there is a definite, third colour, slap in the middle. You a free to disagree with me.

As to the colour photographs taken at the same time...dream on. They'd only start a whole new controversy!!

Cheers

[gingerbob]

OK chaps, for the record here's a Hurri with camera fairing, most definitely NOT in Bosun Blue. The caption says tropicalised, but it doesn't look to me that it has the Vokes type intake- wouldn't we be able to see it?

http://www.iwm.org.u...bject/205090506

The couple of photos [that appeared in my search of IWM archives] that showed a dark recon Hurri (one of which is already in this thread) were taken in India, and the aircraft does not have the blue/red "low-viz" roundel on the fuselage.

Am I right in thinking the subject of our discussion is a Mk.I?

bob

Edited September 6, 2012 by gingerbob

[chaddy]

I'm simply stating that Bosun Blue with heavy weathering is the most logical explanation for the range of features we're seeing on this aircraft. I'm basing this on analysis of the entire photo, not just a favourite "bit" to justify an illogical explanation. This is a PR aircraft not a tactical fighter. There's no logical reason for it to have spaghetti camo or a multi-camo scheme. The sister aircraft of this one that was sent to the Far East was an overall dark shade (single tone) so why would this one be different when they were engaged in the same role? I simply want someone to come up with a logical, plausible explanation for all the pet ideas (spaghetti, TLS etc) that makes sense for this aircraft given its role and operating environment, and given the evidence of heavy staining seen on other Hurricanes.

Cheers,

Mark

I'm sorry Mark, but it's not the most logical explanation. It's an explanation that you seem to have tailored to fit some preconceived idea of what ought to be seen.

The most logical explanation wouls appear to be an PR aircraft with different upper and lower surface colours, as others have commented. The fact that that doesn't fit with what is your idea of what ought to be seen does not make that view incorrect.

And I think you are being a little unfair to other posters, in saying that they are focusing on only small parts of the photograph. They are the one's who are actually focusing on the whole picture. It seems to me that it's you who is actually focusing different bits and trying to make a case for the whole.

cheers

[mhaselden]

Chaddy,

I'm simply countering those who brought up point issues regarding the spaghetti camo and the light undersides. I have offered evidence of why it's not spaghetti or light undersides - others came with those preconceptions and they are equally free to disregard my analysis. My experience as an image analyst (20 years looking at monochrome imagery of three-dimensional objects) tells me that we're seeing a heavily weathered airframe that just happens to tie in with known information about PR airframes in that theatre.

One other point that I haven't yet raised - look at the panel lines on the wing underside. They're plainly visible as light-toned lines. That sort of weathering would be logical for a darker-toned underside with dust accumulating in the joints. If the wing underside was light-toned, would those panel lines show up as distinctly light-toned features?

This is a really great discussion and it's certainly making me think hard about what we're seeing in this image.

Cheers,

Mark

Edited September 6, 2012 by mhaselden

[Test Graham]

Sorry Mark, but your arguments can be mirrored straight back at you. If it is an overall dark aircraft why are the wing underside and the nose and the fuselage underside and the front of the radiator so light? I believe that my suggestion explains more of the puzzling features than any other proposed so far, so plead Occam's Razor.

I quite agree it is (probably) a PRU roundel, which would go with the PR conversion. If it is NOT a PR roundel, I think that would rule out the Dark Blue scheme altogether. As Bob has shown, not all the PR-converted aircraft received the dark blue paint. If it was intended for a TacR squadron, that would make sense. As would a light underside. Re sister aircraft sent to the Far East: you don't need to go that far, as there is no disagreement about the use of the dark blue on PR Hurricanes in the Middle East. There is perhaps a question of how soon they started using this scheme, but I suspect the answer is "fairly early" so am not offering this as any distraction. The question is whether this aircraft is operating in the full PR role, or operating - as the caption says - in the TacR role. Although TacR normally did concentrate on the low-level role, this wasn't exclusive. Later in the war, 40SAAF operated FR Spitfires with vertical cameras in the fuselage behind the pilot. There are times when vertical views were useful even in lower-level command level operations. Trenches, for example, or gun battery positions.

The spaghetti scheme is seen on other TLS aircraft, so no problem there. As for spaghetti vs wear and tear, I think that's more like spaghetti as the wear and tear would not leave a mottle nor extend back along the lower fuselage including part that would have upper-surface camouflage. The dividing line is a bit too neat for wear, and goes up over the leading edge of the wing. All characteristic of the spaghetti, but NOT all typical of wear. Given that, this has to be an old aircraft (yes, it is a Mk.I) that has not been repainted and so is in its original colours, but has been recycled through Alexandria and converted to the PR state. Original colours except for the underside which would have needed some repaint after the modification, apart from any changes of rules about black wings.

The other supporting point is that TacR squadrons did often get second-hand aircraft: PR units got brand new ones to maximise their performance. It would be most unusual for a PRU aircraft to end up in anything like such poor condition, if you accept that option. You're looking at a long period of wear in PR operations, taking you into Mk.II times anyway.

Again: the internal evidence of the photo tells us that this is an FR unit in the Blue not a PR Unit operating from a proper base with cabins etc. 2 PRU had more sophisticated means of processing photographs and generally did not work on the kind of timescale that had the pilot hovering around waiting for news. Allowing of course for this being a PR (other meaning!) photograph not a true historical record, for the FR pilot would fairly rarely be quite so enthusiastic either. It may even have been taken at an OTU rather than a frontline unit, allowing for all sorts of mismatches on the condition of aircraft.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Graham Boak

[mhaselden]

Graham,

You could be right but there is a lot of other damage around the nose area. Look at the panel lines around the forward fuselage fuel tank which show chipping. The area I see as "spaghetti" aligns rather too neatly with the engine panel lines for my liking and could easily be explained by chipping around the edges. I'm seeing no evidence of spaghetti on the wing leading edge. Are there examples of spaghetti camo being applied just to the nose without it appearing on the wing leading edges?

KR

Mark

[chaddy]

OK chaps, for the record here's a Hurri with camera fairing, most definitely NOT in Bosun Blue. The caption says tropicalised, but it doesn't look to me that it has the Vokes type intake- wouldn't we be able to see it?

http://www.iwm.org.u...bject/205090506

The couple of photos [that appeared in my search of IWM archives] that showed a dark recon Hurri (one of which is already in this thread) were taken in India, and the aircraft does not have the blue/red "low-viz" roundel on the fuselage.

Am I right in thinking the subject of our discussion is a Mk.I?

bob

Well sptted!

There is a photograph of "another (unidentifeid) PR Mk I of 208 Sqn" in Aircam 24. This is attributed to Francis K Mason. It shows the tropical filter and the "sand and spaghetti" scheme on the nose and leading edges plus the normal camouflage. It's difficult to make out, but I don't think I can spot a camera pack underneath. However, it might just be the shade, but the port undercarriage door does seem to be of a dark tone.

Cheers

[chaddy]

Graham,

You could be right but there is a lot of other damage around the nose area. Look at the panel lines around the forward fuselage fuel tank which show chipping. The area I see as "spaghetti" aligns rather too neatly with the engine panel lines for my liking and could easily be explained by chipping around the edges. I'm seeing no evidence of spaghetti on the wing leading edge. Are there examples of spaghetti camo being applied just to the nose without it appearing on the wing leading edges?

KR

Mark

Mark, like you I am enjoying the discussion and inter-change of conflicting views.

Clearly there is so,e confusion as to where you see (or rather don't see) what some of us see as the "spaghetti). You seem to be looking at the nose as a whole. The area in question is about 6" wide, around and immediately behind the spinner. This then extends down and below the nose. Forgive me if I have mis-interpreted or mis-understood what you have just said.

If you refer to my last post in response to Bob and you have access to Aircam 24 you can see a PR Mk I with exactly what I have described (and possibly) dark undercarriage doors, though I wouldn't lay money on that!

I'd post the pic here but I'm not certain of the copyright implications.

Cheers.

[gingerbob]

I quite agree it is (probably) a PRU roundel, which would go with the PR conversion. If it is NOT a PR roundel, I think that would rule out the Dark Blue scheme altogether. As Bob has shown, not all the PR-converted aircraft received the dark blue paint. If it was intended for a TacR squadron, that would make sense. As would a light underside. Re sister aircraft sent to the Far East: you don't need to go that far, as there is no disagreement about the use of the dark blue on PR Hurricanes in the Middle East. There is perhaps a question of how soon they started using this scheme, but I suspect the answer is "fairly early" so am not offering this as any distraction.

I think you misread my intent (and I can see why). My point was that the Blue Hurri did NOT have PR roundels, but I also pointed out that it was in India because that might be significant- use of roundel types in one place might differ from those in another place. Nevertheless, it at least somewhat refutes your reasoning that not having a PR roundel would rule out the Dark Blue (or should that be 'dark blue') scheme. When this scheme was introduced is a worthwhile consideration, but do we know, and do we know when the photo was taken?

bob

p.s. Time to look at the Aircam book!

[mhaselden]

Mark, like you I am enjoying the discussion and inter-change of conflicting views.

Clearly there is so,e confusion as to where you see (or rather don't see) what some of us see as the "spaghetti). You seem to be looking at the nose as a whole. The area in question is about 6" wide, around and immediately behind the spinner. This then extends down and below the nose. Forgive me if I have mis-interpreted or mis-understood what you have just said.

If you refer to my last post in response to Bob and you have access to Aircam 24 you can see a PR Mk I with exactly what I have described (and possibly) dark undercarriage doors, though I wouldn't lay money on that!

I'd post the pic here but I'm not certain of the copyright implications.

Cheers.

Hi Chaddy,

I'm looking at exactly the same area on the nose that you describe. There are panel lines for the engine covers that match the area you're describing, hence my perception that we're seeing chipping rather than spaghetti.

Alas I don't have access to Aircam 24 so I can't see the image to which you're referring.

KR

Mark

[Red Dragon]

Aircam No: 24, photo's are not the best though. http://www.scribd.com/doc/58307328/Osprey-Aircam-Aviation-24-Hawker-hurricane

Phil

Hi Chaddy,

I'm looking at exactly the same area on the nose that you describe. There are panel lines for the engine covers that match the area you're describing, hence my perception that we're seeing chipping rather than spaghetti.

Alas I don't have access to Aircam 24 so I can't see the image to which you're referring.

KR

Mark

[mhaselden]

Thanks for the link Phil. The upper photo of the two seems to have light-toned undersides. Note also the pic below it which, according to the caption, is overall blue (there's a reference to one of the colour profiles). The mystery continues...

Edited September 6, 2012 by mhaselden

[Test Graham]

No. The area immediately behind the spinner do indeed match, and is where significant chipping/flaking is seen. However, this is not true about the lower side of the nose, where the panel lines are much lower and the lighter colour overlaps. I have not seen any Hurricane with such significant wear in that area, let alone such a clear demarcation to the upper surface camouflage. Nor on the fuselage side over the wing. These do however match the (somewhat varied) pattern for the spaghetti. It does show as going over the wing in the two photos on page (numbers would help) in Aircam 24, although both of these are in Desert Scheme and the first one may not even be a PR conversion. The third photo is a PR conversion, but it looks to me to be in the dark blue scheme and probably 2PRU not 208 Sq.

Early PR Hurris did not have the full bulge but had the camera in the fuselage and a pair of doors - I think these may be what is visible below the fuselage in the second picture on the page. This may have led to some confusion as to just what variants the TacR units were equipped with, but fortunately there's no such doubt about this example. Quite enough elsewhere. Chasing this point, I don't think the Air Britain serial books tell us which fighters were cycled through the PR conversion in the ME.

Mark is quite right that there is no sign of the spaghetti on the underside of the wing - using his own argument this would be so because of glare and such detail would be lost anyway. The light panel lines would only be due to the sunlight catching on the steps and gaps of the panel lines and rivets - were the sun truly so low and to the left. However, this would place the lower rear fuselage in the shadow of the radiator and this appear dark, plus there would be a shadow of one of the props on the nose. However, looking at the shadow, the sun is shining from the left and about 11o'clock (position in the frame not hour!) thus placing the lower wing and rear fuselage in shadow and not glare. Were they dark, they would appear so under this light.

My answer to the lack of a difference in the leading edge of the wing is that the wing has been repainted to cover the original Night, and the "spaghetti" overpainted. However, an alternative is that the light leading edge and nose is just the undersurface colour wrapped round, so there'd be no difference between it and the underside. This is not true of all spaghetti Hurricanes, for sometimes a clear differential can indeed be seen. Not always, however.

I had edited my earlier post as these others came in. Extending those thoughts, Mark's comment about significant chipping around the petrol tank just underlines my conviction that this is not a PRU aircraft. They would not be allowed to reach such a state.

[gingerbob]

Hopefully this isn't taking us too far astray, but that blue Hurri I referred to, in India, may not be so blue after all... For convenience, here's the link to two photos (and others) that claim to be of the same aircraft:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?query=hurricane%20reconnaissance

My first worry was that it might not be in a PR role at all, but the captions certainly suggest it is. But in the photo back on p.2 of this thread (looking down at the aircraft) the near wingtip seems to show a line between distinct colours. Granted the tailplanes also look "patchy", so I suppose it could be touch-ups. The other shot, more from the side, seems to show two colours on the FAR wingtip!

Incidentally, while studying our original subject, I wondered if I could see a line between colours on the top of the cowling.

I did locate the Aircam, but can't say the photos there spoke very eloquently to me. All in all I'm just as sure as I was earlier that I'm not at all sure!

bob

[mhaselden]

The 3 PRU Hurricane photos are legitimate and it certainly is a PR bird - I've met the pilot who was flying it when those now-famous pics were taken.

[chaddy]

I think you misread my intent (and I can see why). My point was that the Blue Hurri did NOT have PR roundels, but I also pointed out that it was in India because that might be significant- use of roundel types in one place might differ from those in another place. Nevertheless, it at least somewhat refutes your reasoning that not having a PR roundel would rule out the Dark Blue (or should that be 'dark blue') scheme. When this scheme was introduced is a worthwhile consideration, but do we know, and do we know when the photo was taken?

bob

p.s. Time to look at the Aircam book!

The full IWM description is :

"Photographers of an army co-operation squadron use a portable darkroom to develop aerial reconnaissance film at a landing ground in the Western Desert, while a pilot of a tactical reconnaissance Hawker Hurricane, seen in the background, waits to see the results".

As to when, I'm sure others will be able to place it more accurately than me, but I would have thought 1941. I've trawled through references and note the form of headgear seen in the pic only seemed to be "widespread" during the earlier part of the conflict. I imagine Graham might be able to narrow the time frame considerably.

Cheers

[thx6667]

This bad boy...

Has shades (literally) of this from another thread. Same (seemingly) metallic leading edge effect.

As for this trooper:

I've enlarged and lightened (as much as one can) to see if it reveals any more details before the image starts artifacing to badly... its rather inconclusive, if the we take the light patches near the roundel as paint flakes rather than any kind of image noise, then combined with the areas around the cowl (along the panel breaks) and fasteners, especially what appears to be a big chunk missing under the exhausts, then it suggests some kind of paint that didn't stick too well and is coming off in chunks. That its coming off the cowl more than the fuselage suggests a touch more adhesion on the fabric areas than metal.

Is that spaghetti under the nose..? Again, inconclusive, but it could (possibly) be slightly more intense weathering caused by abrasion from the prop wash kicking up sand and dirt. The doors and radiator could be staining, which leads to the notion that the crud under the cowl could be something leaking from behind the the spinner and its made a bit of a mess of the demarcation line from the upper surfaces.

Here's a thought - anyone fancy contributing to buying a high rez print, and then we might be able to glean more? I have a PayPal account and am happy to stump up the first contribution.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Jonathan Mock

[gingerbob]

The 3 PRU Hurricane photos are legitimate and it certainly is a PR bird - I've met the pilot who was flying it when those now-famous pics were taken.

Thanks Mark. There's another shot from the opposite side in the Aircam (they misread the serial) and the caption there says "training", which is what made me wonder.

In the "Aeroplane Icons" Hurri book (p.115) I found this comment:

"(Tac R.I) eight Mk.Is were converted by 103 MU, Aboukir for Tactical Reconnaissance by fitting a single vertical-mounted F.24 camera."

On p. 113 is a much better print of the same shot of a blue PR bird found in the Aircam book. I note that there are some light coloured patches on the cowl and leading edge.

And finally, p.130 has a large view from beneath showing a IIC with very patchy appearance, and a great example of what I take to be oil leak flow-patterns. Eww!

bob

[thx6667]

[Test Graham]

Back to the reference books. AB serials volumes do not list PR conversions, but do confirm that P2638 had seen a lot of use. Mason has an incomplete listing in his bible for Aston, but does have P2638 as converted to a Trop TacR Mk.I (but misses two of its previous fighter squadrons) in July 1942. He does list a number of other, newer, W9xxx aircraft converted directly to TacR Mk Is and going to 208 Sq, but others converted to 3 camera Trop PR Mk.Is and going to 2 PRU. The delivery date for these is June 1941 but the conversion date is up to six months later. Aircraft with Z4xxx serials are similarly split between Trop Tac R Mk.Is to 208 Sq, or later 237 Sq, and Trop PR Mk.Is going to 2 PRU/680 Sq (same unit).

I suspect we are seeing Trop TacR Mk.Is without the bulge, and Trop PR Mk.Is with. Which makes this aircraft a Trop PR Mk.I, but doesn't assist with its unit (see below).

For our Canadian viewers, sadly Mason lists no Mk.Xs. For Australians, Z4231 was converted to a 3 camera Trop PR Mk.I before going to 208 sq(!) October 1941, but ended up in 451 Sq in November 1941 - sadly, stripped of cameras.

[chaddy]

FWIW

Hurricane Tac. R Mark I, Z4641, of No. 451 Squadron RAAF, in flight during a reconnaissance sortie over Libya, with another aircraft of the Squadron acting as a 'sweeper' in the background. The pilot is Flight Lieutenant G F Morley-Mower.

Cheers

[dragonlanceHR]

Since we're mentioning Flt. Lt. Morley-Mower, he in his book Messerschmitt Roulette (got it on eBay this summer, good read) mentions that "Some of our Hurricanes were equipped with cameras, three of them, mounted to the rear of the pilot. The massive old fashioned air cameras, designed for a larger platform than the frail Hurricane, weighted the tail down so badly that the nose would rise in flight even with the elevator trim fully forward. On these aircraft thick elastic cords fastened the stick to the dashboard, relieving the pilot of the physical effort of holding the nose level by main force."

Sadly there are no photos of the PR Hurri in the book and he doesn't mention anything on camouflage in his two page account of the PR mission, possibly because the PR bird wasn't painted differently from other aircraft in the squadron?

Edit: the mission was flown in August 1941

Edited September 6, 2012 by dragonlanceHR

[thx6667]

There is an all-over mottled effect such as on this PRU Hurricane:

OK, first impressions and all that but that "mottle" just looks like weathering, especially as its being carried over onto the roundels and it looks a bit insubstantial and doesn't seem to serve any kind of camouflaging purpose.

[Hornet133]

While Geoff Morley-Mower may have been flying Z4641 for the Publicity shots which ended up as a series now in the IWM, the airframe was the personal 'mount' of Ed Kirkham. It carries the name 'Olive II' under the cockpit, one of a series of 'Olive's that he used during the war.

There were very few PR Hurricanes during the war. Much more common was the Tac.R version which usually did not carry a camera pack as the pilots did their situation reports mainly based on notes made on a knee board, as well described in 'Messerschmitt Roulette'. This was because the fast moving Tactical situation did not allow time for developing of film to deliver to the ALO.

The Tac.R Sqns did use the camera pack at times, for instance 451 Sqn used it when they filmed the fixed defences of Bardia in Dec 1941 after it and other garrisons such as Sollum and Halfaya Pass were cut off and bypassed during the Crusader Offensive. Bardia surrendered in Jan 1942 after an assault by the South Africans and British.

I have passed several photos of such an airframe in 451 Sqn service to Phillipe Listermann for use in a projected 451 history being worked on. It (and all the other of the 451 Sqn airframes) were in either Temperate or Desert colours, none in overall Blue.

I like Morley-Mower's comment about the cameras being designed for a larger mount. I doubt that the Audax etc airframes that were the main users in the late 1930s had more power than the Hurricane.

Steve Mackenzie

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 9/7/2012 at 4:47 AM, Jonathan Mock said:

OK, first impressions and all that but that "mottle" just looks like weathering, especially as its being carried over onto the roundels and it looks a bit insubstantial and doesn't seem to serve any kind of camouflaging purpose.

n/m

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie