Spitfire ID plate censoring in photos question...

[Mark12]

Well WZ-C is K97** something here at Digby in 1939.

[gingerbob]

Ah ha! Thanks, Mark, I pretty much knew the serial was K97something, so that isn't exactly a revelation, BUT...

This photo, according to the caption in "Spitfire- A Documentary History", was taken on or in preparation for the Empire Air Day, 20 May 39. So either the serials were censored after all, or they didn't stay missing from the airplanes for very long. I'm still leaning toward "painted out"- wouldn't it be easier to do that than to censor every photo taken at an event that's been put on so that the press can take photos? Not that I am (yet) suggesting they were only painted out for the press day...

While I'm here, I think it most likely that the aileron and elevator undersides remained aluminium on these, or some of these, aircraft. Furthermore I will go way out on a limb and suggest that some of the supposed "white on black" and vice versa ailerons are mis-interpretations of aluminium finished ones- they'd appear light against the black wing, and dark against the white one.

Now just for a tease I've found enough photos of a squadron formation, which I suspect were taken on this (4 May) day, to tell you that the vics were as follows:

(lead/left wingman (#2?)/right wingman)

<blank> (the first in line on the ground) / C / I (rhymes with "eye")

M / T / V

B / D / E

L / N / R

There are a couple of different formation arrangements pictured, so I can't say for sure who the leader is, but in one formation (a diamond of vics) it is <blank> in the front- might the OC have opted to leave off the individual letter?

On the ground from front to back (right to left) it is <blank> / C / I / H [why isn't it in the air?] / E / B / D / [?] / L, I think / N / R / and last T, the twelfth.

K9798, which was landed gear-up on 18 April, already has 'B' type fuselage roundel and is coded WZoL. I can't see a fuselage serial, but the photo is poor enough that it isn't conclusive.

More analysis to come when I manage to get it all together...

bob

Edited October 8, 2012 by gingerbob

[Mark12]

Here is WZ-T clearly showing the serial painted out.

[JMChladek]

Well, K9799 is my leading candidate. I know, convoluted thinking and a bit of faith. But it is what I am going with. Now that I see an image with a serial on the fuselage, I'll go with that. As for aluminum on the bottom, I'm still going with fully painted over white and black. Reason being is the image of Unwin in front of a Spit shows a clear color difference between white on the wing bottom and aluminum on the gear strut. Other units at other fields might have been a little more loose interpreting of the colors, but I don't believe that 19 Squadron was that way since they were the first Spit unit and seemed to maintain a pretty high standard with thier birds as part of unit pride given how important Duxford was as a base.

Where did you find that pic Mark? It is finally nice to see an image of WZ-C's port side and noting how far up the fuselage the WZ code is. I can also finally see a metal wear spot on the wing walk area on that side (the starboard wing shows lack of excessive wear). The fuel tank looks painted. So I have a feeling what we were seeing in the other image was some kind of wet staining. I had thought about maybe going with a slightly different pattern there, but somebody once told me that models are "illusion" as opposed to "truth". So my bird will be pretty dang close to what I think WZ-C should have looked like. But at the same time it will also be representing other 19 Squadron birds as well in its own way. So I don't necessarily want to go too radical on any one off features.

Another thing I notice is how the props on the birds at Digby are all sitting kind of flat (a natural position). Yet for the press coverage, their props are vertical. Its like somebody thought to put them almost at "attention" with their props straight, like infantrymen with rifles.

Thanks again gentlemen!

[gingerbob]

Well, just to complete the picture (I know it's not great- best I could manage! (from Airfix Spitfire book):

If you look back at the photo I posted earlier showing the hint of over-painted fuselage serial, you can see that the aileron definitely isn't white. Look at T just above, too.

Now that I look at a port-side view of 'C' in flight (in Quill's "Birth of a Legend") even though small, I can see the camo demarcation line running across the tank area, so I conclude it IS in fact painted. Maybe just the fairing panels across the back and bottom are "off-colour"? It kinda looks that way. Also, a couple of the Spits in the line seem to have a "tear-stain" running aft and down from the back corner of the fuel tank- look back at the shots on page 1.

bob

Edited October 2, 2012 by gingerbob

[Mark12]

Look what happens to that aileron when I lighten the shadows. I would suggest the airleron fabric is in 'Aluminium'

[Mark12]

[JMChladek]

A tear stain I can represent easily enough with some slightly glossier than the basecoat clear coating. It would darken things ever so slightly to get that appearance as I see it in photos and it makes sense. So, spilled fuel dribbles aft down the fuel tank until it hits the panel line and goes down the side of the nose. If high octane avgas had a dye in it back then (which I believe it did) you could also see the slight potential for some dye staining the base paint ever so slightly as well without necessarily altering the base coloring too much.

I'm still going with white and black offset colored ailerons on the bottom as it doesn't make much sense to keep them aluminum while the rest of the bottom was painted. The big problem with using a metallic in a camo or ID marking coloring is it tends to absorb the coloring around it, making the contrast not as stark. That is one of the reasons why on race cars when they do a "gold" pinstripe motif on a black car (such as the old JPS Lotuses) they typically used a gold like cream color rather than metallic gold, since the gold might disappear entirely in certain lighting conditions (such as in shade or overcast conditions, perhaps what one might encounter on the bottom of an airplane if the sun is above it). White gives a much better contrast by comparison as the idea here was to help minimize the chance that friendly AA gunners would shoot your plane down.

[gingerbob]

Sorry JM, but I disagree- these airplanes were originally all aluminium on the undersides. Balance of ailerons was critical, and there were restrictions about painting them "in the field"- thus you just leave them as they were. Edgar has posted a document that addresses ailerons quite recently (I don't have time at the mo' to look for it). I see your point about "contrast", but a nice light alu should work.

bob

[JMChladek]

Sorry JM, but I disagree- these airplanes were originally all aluminium on the undersides. Balance of ailerons was critical, and there were restrictions about painting them "in the field"- thus you just leave them as they were. Edgar has posted a document that addresses ailerons quite recently (I don't have time at the mo' to look for it). I see your point about "contrast", but a nice light alu should work.

bob

Aileron balance while being important is not completely critical to the exclusion of all else. There is enough of a minor fudge factor to allow for certain things, although I admit you don't let just anyone go to town with a paintbrush. If a good paint tech with knowledge of certain factors knows what he is doing, I could see a repaint being done if done carefully. That picture you posted from the Airfix Spitfire book of WZ-C's right side shows an aileron that clearly looks darker than what I would expect for aluminium on the right wing which is painted white. It is certainly blacker and duller than the aluminium gear strut and wheel (although parts of the strut don't appear to be shaded).

Duxford was to my knowledge a pretty good sized base even before the war and the maintenance crews on staff could likely do more than just fill up the fluids and check the levels (they could certainly service undercarriage problems at least). Aileron balancing is an involved skill, yet not hard to do for somebody who knows how and can use some simple math, like a properly certified airframe mechanic. Not to mention given it was the first Spitfire squadron on strength, there were probably some Supermarine reps available as well there who could remove the ailerons and have them repainted and rebalanced as needed if the military techs couldn't do it. But doing that can lead to downtime with the squadron and when operational readiness is key, you don't just wait on somebody else to do it when you might have the manpower with the right skill set to do it yourself. Given it was peacetime, as I see it there would be time to do such work. Plus, mechanics would also need to build up their skill sets as in combat, an aileron might get shot full of holes through the doped fabric without damaging the substructure and I doubt they would be just unbolting the things and sending them back to the factory for work UNLESS there was a ready supply on hand of pre-made ailerons ready to go.

But, even if Edgar's research on that point is 100% correct and NO SQUADRON did that sort of thing at all regardless of resources (I respect Edgar's research a lot BTW), I'm not too worried if that bit isn't quite right on my model since we are talking the bottom of the ailerons and nobody will be able to see those unless the model is picked up and flipped over. I can live with it since it is within the realm of possibility and the logic seems to match other references.

[Edgar]

There are various factors which need to be taken into consideration:-

1/. The orders were that "no more than" two coats of Sky should be sprayed over the underlying paint.

2/. Normal complement, for an airfield (not per Squadron) was one spraygun, until well after the war had started.

3/. If the black/white finish had been painted over another colour, or if the ailerons had been repaired, it had to be washed off, with thinners, before painting Sky.

4/. At some stage (don't know the exact date, but possibly as early as 1938) silver was discontinued as an intermediate anti-U/V layer between the red and camouflage dopes, so any "washed-off" aileron might have been red.

5/. Dowding ordered the removal of the roundels, when the black/white scheme was introduced, because he wanted as big an expanse of the colours as possible; in view of that, would he have permitted "opposites," or silver ailerons?

6/. "Aircraft finishers" i.e. aircrew trained in painting, did not exist until around 1941/2, when I.C.I. started courses.

Edgar

[gingerbob]

I just noticed that 'C' has the external gun camera fitted, which would be an interesting touch. Sorry if it's already been mentioned!

bob

[JMChladek]

I just noticed that 'C' has the external gun camera fitted, which would be an interesting touch. Sorry if it's already been mentioned!

bob

You've got eagle eyes to pick that out. Where do you see it in the photos? I didn't know there was such a thing as an external gun camera on a Spit.

[gingerbob]

I asked the chap in your very first photo to point it out for us, there's a good lad! You can also see it in post #9.

[JMChladek]

Well, if I can find a decent image of it from the front and back, I might try to scratch it. But I don't know much about it or exactly how the thing was mounted.

[gingerbob]

No pics yet, but this'll help a little:

Here's an article from 'Flight', 1934:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%200497.html

and would you believe?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Williamson-G-22-Aircraft-camera-gun-Very-Rare-/300663909857

(no connection with deal, but if I could afford a Spit I'd buy this, too!)

Edited October 8, 2012 by gingerbob

[JMChladek]

Thank you for checking, I appreciate the efforts Bob. I've decided to not proceed with the gun camera mount at this time since it appears now that my Spit will be as it looked at Digsby with a black ID number on the tail spine as opposed to at Duxford for that press visit with the numbers painted out. I've moved on a bit and want to get the bird done now (primer layer is drying as I type this).

However, one thing I do need help with involves the antenna wire mount on the tail. It looks like WZ-C still utilizes a tail attachment point for the antenna on the front of the vertical stab, just below the front tip of the rudder. The Spitfire site wasn't helpful as they just show the front antenna and the slightly later teardrop rear mount on the top of the rudder as opposed to the front of the stab. There is one painting I've seen which seems to hint that the tail attach point might have been two pieces of metal bent in like an open hexagonal shape attaching to the back of the stab and looping around it until they come together at the front where the wire attaches.

Fabricating that bit if I can find some good references will be my last major construction hurdle to overcome. Every other research question I've had has been dealt with satisfactorily thanks to you gentlemen! My miniature version of WZ-C is just about ready to hit the display line now.

[jimmaas]

There's a lineup photo in Scale Aircraft Modelling Nov 82 page 63 that appears to show the normal antenna attachment post on the top of the rudder. However, the feature you are describing is a rudder horn balance guard covered here: http://spitfireforums.com/index.php?topic=47.0 - this was a fender used in conjunction with an anti-spin parachute used by a few early Spitfires. Since WZ-C has the 'forward' fuselage roundel position (associated with Spiotfires up to K9814) and the balance guard (K9787 to 9799) that makes it a very early example!

[JMChladek]

Ah ha, so it is! Thanks for helping me kill two more birds with one stone. Looks like it is time for me to pull out the styrene strip and rod to do a little scratchbuilding! And it cements that K9799 is a perfectly acceptable serial number for my plane, even if it might not have been the actual K9799.

[JMChladek]

I just found something very curious. Apparently in Queensland Australia, there is a Spitfire on display painted up to look like WZ-C and the serial number they gave it was K9789. Fascinating. The history of 9789 seems to show that it was the first Spitfire delivered to 19 Squadron in 1938 and it was apparently stripped down for a major inspection in September 1939 before being rebuilt and sent to 65 squadron. Wish I knew who painted that Spitfire replica in Queensland as I am curious to see if they guessed at the number or the tailcode, or if they perhaps had a definitive link to show that the real WZ-C was indeed the 9789. If so, I might be building a model of the very first Spitfire sent to operational squadron service. I just sent the museum that has it an email, so I shall see what they can tell me (if anything).

http://www.qam.com.a...tfire/k9789.htm

Curiouser and curiouser.

UPDATE: I got an email back from the museum. It looks like they had no say in the paintjob as it was done like that when they got it and so they can't really determine if the guy who painted it had the research to confirm if K9789 was indeed WZ-C. So, looks like I'll go back to my K9799 guess. It was worth a shot anyway.

Edited October 15, 2012 by JMChladek

[JMChladek]

Okay, I did a little more research, thanks to a scanned article Edgar sent me. I've decided I'll do the ailerons and elevators on my model in aluminum afterall. It will help with the history of the aircraft and squadron I am trying to represent. Plus, it will also give it a little more color. And K9799 will be the serial I use for my particular build. So, thanks again everyone who contributed. I certainly now know a lot more about early Spitfire paintjobs and features than I ever thought I would need to when I started this project.