Spitfire marking query - Burmese and Belgian service

[Basuroy]

Hello everyone ,I have some spare markings for Burmese and Belgian air force . The problem is the Burmese decals are from an Airspeed oxford sheet and the Belgian roundels from a spitfire mk.14 sheet . I wish to confirm whether they are the appropriate size for a spitfire mk.9/mk.16 .

Here are two photos with the decals on the wings , my queries are -

1. Is the Burma marking the correct size ? I have checked whatever photo google image could provide and remain in doubt ; based on the photo of a Burmese f.15 seafire , that airplane at least had markings of similar proportion ( give or take 5% error  ). I am willing to go ahead even if there is an error of 10% in size . 



2. Were there any Belgian mk.9/mk.16 specimen which carried roundel of the following size and were in NMF/aluminium dope ? I could find many photos of camouflaged airplanes with similar roundels but none of bare metal .





Regards , 
Basu

Edited February 20, 2017 by Basuroy

[corsaircorp]

Hello Basuroy,

Follow this thread and compare, if you need some photos, I can help, may be

You can also go on Belgian wings, URL is on the thread too.

To me, it look right.

Good luck, the Eduard Spit are a pleasure

Sincerely.

Corsaircorp

 

[Mark12]

Burmese Spitfires.

 

I took this this colour museum shot in 1996. The fuselage National marking  compares favourably with period shots from the 1950's. 

 

I would suggest the fuselage and upper wing National markings in the colour shot are the same size, however as delivered and probably in service no National markings were applied to the upper wing.

 

The under wing National markings are clearly larger as in the b/w delivery shot.

 

 

 

Jackie Moggridge - delivery pilot

Edited February 20, 2017 by Mark12

[Basuroy]

1 hour ago, corsaircorp said:

Hello Basuroy,

Follow this thread and compare, if you need some photos, I can help, may be

You can also go on Belgian wings, URL is on the thread too.

 

Thanks for the link , there were some excellent shots in there - I didn't know that the inside of the canopy frame was painted black . Cheers  
 

10 minutes ago, Mark12 said:

Burmese Spitfires.

 

I took this this colour museum shot in 1996. The fuselage National marking  compares favourably with period shots from the 1950's. 

 

I would suggest the fuselage and upper wing National markings in the colour shot are the same size, however as delivered and probably in service no National markings were applied to the upper wing.

 

The under wing National markings are clearly larger as in the b/w delivery shot.

 

 

Thanks a lot for the images , they are in my opinion fall in the category of rarest of the rare and I couldn't find anything as helpful even though I did multiple google searches.

I am tending heavily towards the Burmese spit because of the camo scheme - I don't want to do the typical ocean grey/dark green spit .  At least the colour shot provides some justification for going ahead with the decals I have and that is how I will likely paint mine unless I can find a Belgian highback  mk.9/16 spit in aluminium dope . 

The last image - what is the paint scheme of that airplane ? I am not sure if I can make out a camouflage demarcation  .

[Mark12]

"The last image - what is the paint scheme of that airplane ? I am not sure if I can make out a camouflage demarcation " .

 

This is the Brown/Green camouflage applied by the Israelis at the point of overhaul prior to delivery. The Spitfire is most likely UB441.

 

Both the camouflaged Mk IX's and the UK supplied silver Mk XV's did not carry upper wing National markings in any of the shots I have during delivery and early in service.

 

Latterly in service the Seafire XV's for certain and the 'gate guardian' Spitfires and Seafires in Burma did carry them.

 

The one shot I have carrying upper wing Markings in service:-

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Mark12

[Don McIntyre]

Not to be considered as a fine example of modeling, or authoritative in any sense, but this is my nostalgia build of the old Monogram Spitfire IX using Aeromaster decals. Painted using Modelmaster Dark Earth and Dark Green (IIRC) and (again IIRC) Humbrol Azure Blue.

 

 

If nothing else it will show what the overall scheme looks like.

[Gwart]

http://www.belgian-wings.be/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/Supermarine Spitfire IX/Supermarine Spitfire IX Frontpage.html

 

http://www.belgian-wings.be/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/Supermarine Spitfire IX/Spitfire IX SM41.html

 

http://www.belgian-wings.be/webpages/navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/Supermarine Spitfire IX/Spitfire IX SM36.html

 

http://www.belgian-wings.be/webpages/navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/Supermarine Spitfire IX/Spitfire IX SM29.html

 

http://www.belgian-wings.be/webpages/navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/Supermarine Spitfire IX/Spitfire IX SM28.html

 

 

 

 

[Mark12]

Twelve Mk XV Seafires of No 1 Squadron Burmese Air Force circa 1954 over their base at Hmawbi.

 

Note, not a triangular upper wing National marking among them.

 

 

[Basuroy]

1 minute ago, Mark12 said:

Twelve Mk XV Seafires of No 1 Squadron Burmese Air Force circa 1954 over their base at Hmawbi.

 

Note, not a triangular upper wing National marking among them.

 

 

 

 

Cheers Mark , this is good for me because the fuselage decals , that I have , are good fit as per the images or if the wings look too barren , I will just model it as the Museum piece you share above

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Basuroy

[Bedders]

Interesting photos, but I'm not sure they're conclusive, as I can't see any fuselage triangle markings either. 

 

Justin

[Mark12]

10 hours ago, Bedders said:

Interesting photos, but I'm not sure they're conclusive, as I can't see any fuselage triangle markings either. 

 

Justin

 

Whilst I would open to it being a trick of the light in this part of the world, with the benefit of the original poor image and a magnifying glass I can just see a hint of a triangle on some the vertical fuselage surfaces that are in full side view strong sunlight. The outer triangle of the national marking is dark blue and indeed on the crash Seafire b/w image appears to be almost as dark as the black 14" anti-dazzle strip from the windscreen to the spinner. Even on the poor formation  shot the anti-dazzle strip, on a horizontal surface, is clear to see on all 12 aircraft, yet not a hint of the dark blue 3" wide or so outer triangle on the horizontal surface of the upper wings. Could it be the colour blue and the type of film used possibly?

 

I have a good number of shots the Mk IX's being delivered from Israel to Burma and on the five or so where the upper wing is clearly visible there are no National marking three colour triangles.

 

[Bedders]

Fair do's. Must say I'm quite taken with the Burmese XVs, as these de-navalised ones are like Spit XIIs but with symmetrical radiators. And therefore even more pleasing shape-wise, at least to my eye. 

 

Justin

[Troy Smith]

On 20/02/2017 at 16:17, Mark12 said:

Burmese Spitfires.

 

I took this this colour museum shot in 1996. The fuselage National marking  compares favourably with period shots from the 1950's. 

 

I would suggest the fuselage and upper wing National markings in the colour shot are the same size, however as delivered and probably in service no National markings were applied to the upper wing.

 

The under wing National markings are clearly larger as in the b/w delivery shot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Mk IX above looks to  have had  empty cartridge/links eflectors added (by the U)  which is something I've not seen before,  presumably to protect the  rockets when fitted? 

 

From the photos the Burmese Seafire XV's look to be finished in aluminium dope rather than natural metal?

 

As for denavalisation,  I know  this was posted 

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?25335-Burmese-de-navalised-Seafires-the-myth

Quote

Again it promulgates the specification of the 'de-navalisation' of the Seafire Mk XV's supplied to the Union of Burma Air Force. It states yet again, as in several recent books from highly respected 'Spitfire' authors, that the folding wings were exchanged for those of the Spitfire Mk XVIII.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?s=4b35b305be51ff14348d71cf40c81d22&attachmentid=23125&stc=1&d=1084021507
Just where this comes from, God alone knows, but it might have its origins in the supply of three Mk XVIIIs from ACSEA to Burma post WWII for training.

The amount of engineering required to carry out such a conversion would be astronomic and totally uneconomic. The unique to Mk XVIII solid spar booms on the wing would be over wide to engage the Seafire Mk XV firewall spar, let alone accommodate the wing bolt diameter difference. The radiator installation would need to have considerable surgery. Wing fillets would all need replacing etc etc.

As this is the third book published in two years with said specification perhaps it is time to blow the whistle in the hope that it will percolate out.

Mark

 

So, the denavalisation was removal of hook (or fixing in place) and exchanging  of rudders,  the above looks like a late IX or XII rudder? 

 

On 02/08/2011 at 00:21, Seahawk said:

Yes, there are 2 photos on p.84 of "Wings of Fame" 16. One is a port-side view of UB415: Crowood correlates this to FAA serial PR422, which, as a fairly early serial, was probably one of those with the underfuselage arrester hook. No sign of any arrester hook under the fuselage (Crowood says arrester hooks, catapult spools and folding wings were removed during refurbishment by Airwork): tail area is a bit murky but I can't make out any sign of a sting-type hook. UB 415 looks to be in silver or light grey with a dark spinner. 4-wheel hubs, Seafire 17 style fuselage drop tank and code "O" in the form of a black hollow square below the rear cockpit glazing. Aircraft clearly has the Seafire XV extended rudder trim tab. No radio mast visible.

Other pic is a line-up of at least 4 a/c of which only 1 is identifiable: UB407. Spinner apparently same colour as fuselage. Tail area not shown, nor is area where B415 has a code. Drop-tank again carried. Crowood says this is ex-SR434. That is quite a late F.15 serial so it almost certainly had a sting-type hook to start with but whether this was removed during refurbishment, I couldn't say.

 

thank you

T

[Graham Boak]

Thinking commercially, there would have been a lot of spare Spitfire wings available at the time, and not too expensive, but it would have been cheaper to remove the folding wing mechanism and rigidly fix the wings open.  This could be described, by a non-technical writer, as removing the folding wings.  I suspect that the later Seafires had a stronger undercarriage, which might have been a complication had it come to actual wing changes.. 

[gingerbob]

My assumption, as with the Irish Seafire IIIs, was that the wings were just "bolted" in the extended position, with the convenient Naval-specific stuff just removed from the airframe.  When, not long ago (say, within two decades?) some Seafire XVs came from Burma to the US, I seem to remember seeing at least one photo of one with wings folded, which seemed to support my assumption.

 

I should think that Peter would be able to answer the specifics of that question!

[Troy Smith]

bob is right,  from the link above

 

 

Preserved Seafire XV in Burma

[Greenshirt]

Given they were manually folded, the expedient would be to simply replace the sliding pin with a bolt, remove the hook and frame and fair over the opening. Possibly remove any accelerator hooks and any other unique naval equipment that is easily removed without affecting balance. 

 

Aannd Troy pops in with a photo...

[Mark12]

19 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Thinking commercially, there would have been a lot of spare Spitfire wings available at the time, and not too expensive, but it would have been cheaper to remove the folding wing mechanism and rigidly fix the wings open.  This could be described, by a non-technical writer, as removing the folding wings.  I suspect that the later Seafires had a stronger undercarriage, which might have been a complication had it come to actual wing changes.. 

 

Thinking commercially, the world market for surplus Seafire XV's in 1950/1 would be pretty small. If they were available they would likely be bottom end of the price range.

 

The Seafire XV was basically a navalised Spitfire Mk XII. The XII was considered by many, including Jeffrey Quill, to be one of the finest Spitfire variants built. Agile with bags of power from the short Griffon but running out of puff above 10k feet with the single stage supercharger.

 

The prime operational requirement for the Burmese was counter- insurgency and the Seafire XV would have been ideal  for this purpose.

 

The only Spitfire wing that would fit the Seafire XV would, in practical terms, spar boom width and wing bolt diameters, be the MK IX wing but even this would would require radiator  replacements  to delete the inter-cooler radiator and increase the coolant radiator capacity with all the new pipework, electrics, thermostats, testing etc etc. Why bother? So the wing folds... you can get more aircraft in the hangar and out of the sun.

 

I acquired a Burmese Seafire XV wing some years back and there was no evidence of it having a locked down non folding feature. It is currently fitted to airworthy Seafire XVII SX336

 

The precise serial number point at which the Seafire XV changed from an 'A' Frame arrestor hook to a 'Sting' type arrestor hook is unknown to me. For sure to panel over and close the A-Frame aperture would be a preferred route rather than modify the stern post to delete the hook attachment and fit the early rudder. Currently former Burmese Seafire UB414 / SR462 is being refurbished to fly and has had the A-Frame detail reinstated.

 

Of the few images I have of the Seafire XV's at Airwork, Gatwick, prior to conversion and sale to the Burmese, all are fitted with the A-Frame.

 

Yes, the Seafire undercarriage was uprated for carrier landings. Possibly a selling point.

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Mark12

[Mark12]

On 2/23/2017 at 0:47 PM, gingerbob said:

My assumption, as with the Irish Seafire IIIs, was that the wings were just "bolted" in the extended position, with the convenient Naval-specific stuff just removed from the airframe.  When, not long ago (say, within two decades?) some Seafire XVs came from Burma to the US, I seem to remember seeing at least one photo of one with wings folded, which seemed to support my assumption.

 

I should think that Peter would be able to answer the specifics of that question!

 

Irish Seafire wings...they folded.

 

Images by Graham Skillen

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Mark12