Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Crane

burning question about markings

Recommended Posts

Seawinder    231

I found a profile of another 610 Sqn. Spitfire with the fin flash as you've done it, oversize fuselage roundels and lack of under-wing roundels: DW-K, S.N. N3289. The profile shows the "B" camouflage scheme as in the one I mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy Smith    2,448

if you want markings to do with the model as it stands....

 

33418047213_0cebbcc0ac_k.jpg

 

the markings as shown are for a very limited window,  the oversize roundel is the result of adding a full width yellow ring to the existing 35 inch A type in May 1940. (see monograph previous linked)

 

this is another way the yellow ring was added, narrower ring  to avoid codes 

allan_richard_wright_2_zpsbbfe5419.jpg

 

 

But How about this one, if you can make up code masks?


Spitfire Mk I R6597 GR@A, 92 Sq before the code changed to QJ
(Note reversed fin flash)

 

Spitfire_Mk_Ia_R6597_GR-A_of_No_92_Squad

 

Don't know about the  smaller upperwing,  (you have done 40 inch, larger size is  56 inch, )

This is From @lasermonkey   photobucket of Spitfires, which has lots of photos by squadron if you look at the left side  bar

 

this shows the running order of the codes on the starboard side (it could, and did vary a lot, compare to the 610 planes )

92%20sqn%20gru_zps1nzktnrc.jpg

 

 

Spitfire Mk I P9372 GR@G

d4ede939a79f888fb7df725b77b01967_zpsndr9

 

Note that there is no 'font' for the codes, but they were often similar in the same squadron at the  same time*,  and I've not seen decals for GR-A,  you seem  handy with making masks, so you should be able  to do codes,  pay attention to features and panel lines on the airframe to get size and proportion, though the stroke width is probably 6 inches fullsize, 1/8th  inch on model

 

* though code style and markings could  and did vary even in a  squadron .... it  was a very hectic time

note top pic ...

Supermarine%20Spitfire%20Camo%20&%20Mark

 

HTH

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seawinder    231

Both GR-A and GR-G appear to be "B" scheme, and GR-G has no fin flash. I think there will have to be some compromise in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy Smith    2,448
25 minutes ago, Seawinder said:

Both GR-A and GR-G appear to be "B" scheme, and GR-G has no fin flash. I think there will have to be some compromise in any case.

whoops...  I was looking at the camo division under the 'A' in GR-A,  not  the tail....

 

Though, as the original post was about not slavishly following a photo....

 

A brief note on why there are quite a few pics of 610 Squadron,   as photos from this era are rare,(photography on operation bases was illegal)   but in July 1940 a Fox film unit went to Hawkinge to make a training  film,  and took a still photographer,  who took the shots of the 610 Spitfire, and also the as famous 32 Sq Hurricanes. (the ones coded GZ with oversize letters)

 

Anyway....maybe someone else can come up a potential match...

this is an interesting thread on research  Spitfire markings, and small detail changes,   well worth a read

 

and... finally this one came too mind..  good and clear on the codes size and position,  right scheme, 

 

Spitfire-MkI-RAF-19Sqn-QVK-Brian-Lane-Ba

 

Possibly still with Black /white undersides, though if it was still serving in June 1940, these would have ended up in 'Sky' of some sort

 

this is from Sep 1940, just for code running order

Sgt Jennings X4474 Fowlemere Sep 1940

Spitfire-MkIa-RAF-19Sqn-QVI-Sgt-Jennings

 

 

note again how the code  size changed, this from April 1940 I think

Spitfire-MkI-RAF-19Sqn-QVK-and-QVO-patro

 

note smaller upperwing roundel as well

 

cheers

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seawinder    231
13 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

if you want markings to do with the model as it stands....

 

33418047213_0cebbcc0ac_k.jpg

 

Hi Troy. I hadn't focused on the size of the upper wing roundels in the OP's photo. Were they ever actually that small, especially during the month or two when the fin flash and fuselage roundel would have been as he depicted them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy Smith    2,448
1 hour ago, Seawinder said:

Hi Troy. I hadn't focused on the size of the upper wing roundels in the OP's photo. Were they ever actually that small, especially during the month or two when the fin flash and fuselage roundel would have been as he depicted them?

Hi Pip

 

....possibly!   

if it was an older plane,  would they bother  repainting.   AFAIK, this shot is spring 1940,  and there were a lot older Spitfires at this point before the BoB

Spitfire-MkI-RAF-19Sqn-QVK-and-QVO-patro

 

note the diagram from  Ducimus

Supermarine%20Spitfire%20Camo%20&%20Mark

Initial production

56 inch A1

SpitI19a.jpg?1495643830345

Note that blue ring is 40 inch,  and the 40 inch came about painting  out the yellow outer ring

Service Spitfires 1939-40 - 40 inch

Then standard 56  inch. 

 

note part on 'Red and Blue'

Supermarine%20Spitfire%20Camo%20&%20Mark

 

 

same thing happend with Hurricanes

 

Hurricane

 

if you look at carefully it's  possible to see the overpainted yellow on the wing.

 

The other problem is having a photo showing the upperwing.....  one of our Spitfire obsessives may know more

 

cheers

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rossm    178

As an aside, this sort of detail is more than my fellow judge at the Plymouth show and I carry in our heads even though we are both well up on RAF WWII aircraft. For a 1940ish Spitfire or Hurricane we'd expect Dark Green and Dark Earth uppers and some variation on Aluminium, Black/White, Sky undersides with early roundels and Grey codes. We know code and roundel sizes varied so anything looking vaguely right would be ok. Same sort of generalities for Luftwaffe and other nations. Modelling skills really are the main thing we look for. Other shows may be different but I hope not - if I enter a model I believe to be finished in my best interpretation of what the colours and markings should be then I don't want to be marked down because the judge has a different interpretation, unless they can produce a colour photo of the exact aircraft taken in the period I have quoted for my model to back up their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seawinder    231
20 minutes ago, rossm said:

As an aside, this sort of detail is more than my fellow judge at the Plymouth show and I carry in our heads even though we are both well up on RAF WWII aircraft. For a 1940ish Spitfire or Hurricane we'd expect Dark Green and Dark Earth uppers and some variation on Aluminium, Black/White, Sky undersides with early roundels and Grey codes. We know code and roundel sizes varied so anything looking vaguely right would be ok. Same sort of generalities for Luftwaffe and other nations. Modelling skills really are the main thing we look for. Other shows may be different but I hope not - if I enter a model I believe to be finished in my best interpretation of what the colours and markings should be then I don't want to be marked down because the judge has a different interpretation, unless they can produce a colour photo of the exact aircraft taken in the period I have quoted for my model to back up their opinion.

I totally agree: the markings on the OP's model would be very unlikely to be flagged by the judges at most (especially local level) contests. Upon rereading the OP's OP, it appears he's at least equally concerned from a philosophical point of view about how important we as modelers think it is to have our models closely match documented prototypes. Based on what I've seen and read so far, I think he's going to have to be content with a "representative example" that won't fully match any real plane, which IMHO is not the end of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Graham Boak    2,402

I don't model for competitions, and don't really understand why people think it a good idea anyway.  However, if models are to be judged then accuracy of appearance, fit and detail are all important.  After all, what is it a model of?  To answer Rossm's main point: it is impossible for judges to know everything about everything, so I rather like the scale flying models approach to competitions.  Models are submitted for judging with photos and details of the fit and the scheme, so that the modeller's skills can be checked against what the model should look like, rather than merely what the modeller felt looked good on the day.  Research is part of a modeller's skill: if you are submitting a model specified to be in a given period where part of it is only appropriate before a given day, and another part only appropriate for some months after, then the model deserves to be marked down.  Not doing this makes the whole exercise seem pretty pointless to me.  I presume offering a Spitfire Mk.IX in the Day Fighter Scheme as a Battle of Britain example would be unacceptable, but where is the line to be drawn?  Get It Right - or at least show where the information you are working from lead you to what you are submitting.  At the very least, you have a responsibility to those looking at your models not to spread falsity.  I know that fake news is very popular at the moment... but let's restrict that to politics?

 

Which has nothing to do with whatever you model at home.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seawinder    231
13 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't model for competitions, and don't really understand why people think it a good idea anyway.  However, if models are to be judged then accuracy of appearance, fit and detail are all important.  After all, what is it a model of?  To answer Rossm's main point: it is impossible for judges to know everything about everything, so I rather like the scale flying models approach to competitions.  Models are submitted for judging with photos and details of the fit and the scheme, so that the modeller's skills can be checked against what the model should look like, rather than merely what the modeller felt looked good on the day.  Research is part of a modeller's skill: if you are submitting a model specified to be in a given period where part of it is only appropriate before a given day, and another part only appropriate for some months after, then the model deserves to be marked down.  Not doing this makes the whole exercise seem pretty pointless to me.  I presume offering a Spitfire Mk.IX in the Day Fighter Scheme as a Battle of Britain example would be unacceptable, but where is the line to be drawn?  Get It Right - or at least show where the information you are working from lead you to what you are submitting.  At the very least, you have a responsibility to those looking at your models not to spread falsity.  I know that fake news is very popular at the moment... but let's restrict that to politics?

 

Which has nothing to do with whatever you model at home.  

Well, for better or for worse, IPMS judging standards focus nearly exclusively on modeling skills, and they don't require photographic documentation with a model entry. If I were judging at a local contest and saw a Spitfire Mk.I with BoB-style MSG codes, but painted in DFS, I'd probably remark on it, but I wouldn't be able to disqualify it simply on that basis. By the same token, if the OP finishes his Mk.I with plausibly sized MSG codes and appropriate serials (even if unconnected to any documented plane), it'll almost undoubtedly look "right" enough to pass muster without remark, contest or otherwise. I think the line becomes even fuzzier in cases where there is basically no photographic or documentary evidence available (e.g. my experience building a Yak-7UTI I mentioned above). IMHO the best we can do in such cases is an educated guess at a representative example based on what we know about prevailing painting and marking procedures at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crane    49

I don't have much hope in finding something that matches perfectly to what I am building. I made it up as I went along.

However, I would like the code letters and aircraft letter to be plausible. What are my options as far as code letters ? Once I get that straight, I think I will chose an aircraft letter that has not been documented.

 

As far as the size of the roundel on the upper wing surface, it is the same size as the kit's decal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Man    1,533
16 minutes ago, Crane said:

 

However, I would like the code letters and aircraft letter to be plausible. What are my options as far as code letters ? Once I get that straight, I think I will chose an aircraft letter that has not been documented.

 

 

 

 

Find a squadron that operated Spitfires in the June/July 1940 period. You can find its code letters here:

 

http://www.rafweb.org/Organsation/Org-index.htm#Squadrons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy Smith    2,448
1 hour ago, Crane said:

I don't have much hope in finding something that matches perfectly to what I am building. I made it up as I went along.

However, I would like the code letters and aircraft letter to be plausible. What are my options as far as code letters ? Once I get that straight, I think I will chose an aircraft letter that has not been documented.

 

As far as the size of the roundel on the upper wing surface, it is the same size as the kit's decal.

 

re-read my posts.this is an overall decent match, oversize roundel, right camo pattern. 

 

Note, from http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p008.html

Quote

P9386 Ia 569 EA MIII

 

FF 1-3-40 AMDP Airspeed trials with company test pilots

6-3-40 38MU 11-5-40 257S

18-5-40 19S 'QV-K'

3-9-40 152S

26-9-40 58OTU

23-3-41 Scottish Aviation

12-9-41 52OTU

17-11-41 57OTU

29-8-43 dived into ground East Lothian

CE 5-5-44

 

P9386 Arrived in May, (when I think this was taken) stayed with 19 Sq until September.

Spitfire-MkI-RAF-19Sqn-QVK-Brian-Lane-Ba

 

 

33418047213_0cebbcc0ac_k.jpg

 

The undersides would have been repainted in early June 1940 into 'Sky' of some sort, and the spinner painted black at some point as well.

all you need to match a documented photo is to widen the fin stripes, and make some code masks, get some serial numbers, and that is most likely what P9386 looked like in June/July 1940.

 

In August underwing roundels were reintroduced. (see Ducimus)

 

You can of course do what you like, you may wish to have a browse of the production pages,  some listings have the aircraft letter, and pick something from there, or browse the link I snet to the Spitfire squadron photos

this is the 64 Sq

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/lasermonkey/library/Wartime Spitfire pics/No 64 Sqn?sort=3&page=1

but other squadrons are listed at the left, with more pics.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seawinder    231
2 hours ago, Crane said:

I don't have much hope in finding something that matches perfectly to what I am building. I made it up as I went along.

However, I would like the code letters and aircraft letter to be plausible. What are my options as far as code letters ? Once I get that straight, I think I will chose an aircraft letter that has not been documented.

 

As far as the size of the roundel on the upper wing surface, it is the same size as the kit's decal.

Well, actually, the Tamiya kit provides two sizes of upper wing roundels. As Troy has explained above, the smaller resulted from the overpainting of the outer yellow ring of the B-type roundels originally applied, while the larger (56 inches, about 29 mm in 1/48) became the standard size in summer 1940. That said, why don't you do the plane on the cover of the Tamiya box, which I actually recommended a number of posts above in this thread. To quote myself, it's "DW-O (serial conveniently overpainted) of 610 Sqn., Biggin Hill, August 1940. The codes are also oversized, and, according to the instructions (Aeromaster 48-076), there are no under-wing roundels. The problem, however, is that this plane has the "B" camouflage pattern, which is the mirror reverse of the "A" pattern you've applied to your model. Also, according to the instructions, the fin flash has the red and blue incorrectly reversed." On the plus side, the roundels match what you've done, and there's no need to hassle a serial. On the minus side, the camouflage is reversed from what you've done (as are the other possibilities Troy suggested), and the fin flash may have its colors reversed (although I don't necessarily trust Aeromaster's call in such matters). Best of all, the codes are right there on the decal sheet, which you can either use as decals or as patterns to make your own masks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lasermonkey    609

Sorry about the late reply. I've just got back from holiday in darkest Suffolk, where the internet was not much more than two paper cups and  a length of string!

Here's a picture of another No.92 Sqn Spifire, also flown by Allan Wright. This has the later QJ codes, the oversized 49" roundel and interestingly, the fin flash colours are reversed.

92-sqn-spits_zps77e8db5d.jpg

 

I'll try to dig out my trusty copy of the November '82 issue of SAM, as that has some very useful info regarding upperwing roundel sizes.

 

Cheers,

Mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crane    49

 

Thank you all for the input and info.

After more research I have decided to use the code letters KL.

I have seen that code on many early spitfires.

As far as individual aircraft code, I have seen A, B, O, T, M, N, Z used with KL, so I will not use any of those none of those aircraft match what I have built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all i say hi,

 for the original post i say build what you want to. paint it how you want to. Do what you want its your hobby. Unless like others have stated you are competing and the model you are presenting is of a specific known subject. If you can provide evidence for your modifications or changes to paint,markings,& ordnance. Always display that as well. 

     Now i have to add that here in the USA. Ipms has a bad rep with me and also in my neck of the woods. I live in a suburb of chicago. And attended multiple shows since the late 1980's. In my experience unless the judges are from an independant chapter. Or you are attending the nationals or a regional meet do not ... i repeat do not count on winning or even being mentioned at a local chapter show, meet, or group build.

       I say this from personal experiences of attending multiple local chapter meets and shows. And though commonly being an open invite to all including non-members. Truthfully this winds up being a case of members from that particular chapter only being picked or winning. This is why i have turned my back on joining any local IPMS chapters, and attending there shows. I do go for the swapmeets as there are always great deals and rarities to be had. 

       Im sorry if this ruffled any feathers as that was never my intention. Just trying to hand out a fair warning to any person who may consider competing in the future. Again i apologize to any i have offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×