Jump to content

Underwing Roundels on SEAC Beaufighters?


X Trapnel

Recommended Posts

That's my question.  The instructions for the (relatively) new Airfix  Beaufighter show the 1945 SEAC version as having underwing roundels. Does anyone know if this is correct?  I know that as a general rule at this point in the war RAF bombers did not have underwing roundels, while fighters did, but I'm not sure which category the Beaufighter would fit into.  Some  drawings I've seen show the roundels, while others do not, but I've not been able to find any photos that offer a clear answer.  Any insights on this?

 

Thanks,

X

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may have been exceptions, but I don`t think that roundels were applied to the undersides of Beau`s in SEAC,.....here is my model without them;

Image result for beaufighter india burma

 

Cheers

          Tony

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scheme is this

a04019-layout-b_1.jpg

 

a dig through Beaufighter At War has two images,  page 90 and 92,and the wing undersides are not clearly visible,  but the other pics of 27 Sq planes show no underwing roundels.

It's a great book, and well worth getting. (I got mine cheap on Amazon)

 

other pics of SEAC Beaufighters on the IWM don't show underwing roundels

eg

large_000000.jpg?action=e&cat=photograph
ROYAL AIR FORCE OPERATIONS IN THE FAR EAST, 1941-1945.. © IWM (CI 661)IWM Non Commercial Licence

"Ground crews working on a Bristol Beaufighter Mark VIF which made a forced landing on the beach airstrip at Nidania ('George') on the coast of Bengal, India, while returning from a sortie over Burma."

 

large_000000.jpg?action=e&cat=photograph
ROYAL AIR FORCE OPERATIONS IN THE FAR EAST, 1941-1945. © IWM (CF 511)IWM Non Commercial Licence

Groundcrew surround the pilot of Bristol Beaufighter Mark VIF, X7898 'G', of No. 89 Squadron RAF Detachment at Sadaung, Burma, after a sortie over the Mandalay area.

 

there maybe details is this film

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060028821

Quote
Full description

View of runway with Bristol Beaufighters taking off. One of the Beaufighters has a thimble-shaped nose radome, presumably a night fighter. Beaufighter NE658 'G' taking off. Beaufighter 'D' landing. Beaufighter being fuelled from a bowser and being serviced. Shot looking up at fitter working on engine. Rather indistinct and poorly lit shot, probably of two armourers servicing the aircraft's guns. Clearer view of guns being serviced. Beaufighter taxiing with cockpit canopy open and local Indian children in foreground. Engines shutting down and crew disemplaning from Beaufigher 'B'. 20mm guns are serviced before being remounted on aircraft. Beaufighter 'M' taxis past camera. Engines starting up. Armourer loading a belt of 20mm ammunition into a Beaufighter's magazine. Airmen gather around a map for a briefing with bamboo huts in the background. Airman wearing a kukri on his belt boards a Beaufighter named 'King Charles II' through forward boarding hatch. In the background a second airman dons his parachute harness before emplaning. Engines starting. Beaufighter taxis from dispersal.

 

but it's  not to view at the IWM site,  if you make an appointment you can go and view the film, but getting copies is quite pricey :(

 

from 

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Beaufighter/SEAC.html

 

Beaufighter-MkX-RAF-211Sqn-M-NV862-Alfre

 

 

 

 

this one just because it's great and I've not seen it before!

Beaufighter-MkX-RAF-White-R-showing-its-

Edited by Troy Smith
add pics
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29 Sep 1943 Air HQ India issued an instruction under ref. 6005/45/ENG setting out roundel dimensions and the notes at para 3 of that document stated that:-

 

"Markings on the under surfaces of mainplanes will be used only on those functional types so specified in A.M.O. A.664/42 (as amended by A.1096/42 and A.1377/42)." 

 

A.664/42 specifically required Day bombers abroad and "Long range Beaufighters" of Coastal Command to have no under wing markings. I don't know whether that translated into SEAC Beaufighters wearing no under wing roundels, whether there was another specific Air HQ India order not yet discovered or whether the Beaufighter was simply not considered to be one of the functional types requiring under wing markings as specified in the AMO.  That raises the question of the officially designated role of the Beaufighter in SEAC. I'm not in a position to explore that further at present but maybe someone else will be able to resolve it. 

 

A.664/42 in respect of national markings was cancelled by Air HQ India in April 1944 and AFO (India) 357/43 referenced instead.   

 

Nick 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much gentlemen.  Your learned comments leave me pretty certain that this aircraft didn't have underwing roundels.  And thanks to Troy for sharing the photos, particularly the one of the Beau in flight.  A very striking, evocative picture I'd not seen before.

 

X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one thought does strike me, the red code letters.

a04019-layout-b_1.jpg

 

the photos I refer to in the book Beaufighter At War has two images,  page 90 and 92,and the wing undersides are not clearly visible,  but the other pics of 27 Sq planes show no underwing roundels.

All the 27 Sq  aircraft shown,  3 other aircraft show white outlined code letters,  the tone is the same as the SEAC white in the roundels/fin flash.  (I can't easily copy the pics at the mo)

Is there a source for the red codes?

I suspect this might be a @Nick Millman  or @tonyot  question?

 

I note that Cutting Edge used SEAC White?

https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/gb/cleaverbeaux.htm

cleaverbeauxe.jpg

 

Anyone know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

And now a follow up question.  What's the best guess on whether this Beaufighter would have had stencils?  The instructions show them, but I have my doubts.  I believe SEAC aircraft were repainted in India before being assigned to units, and stencils were generally not reapplied.  I can't see any stencils in the pictures earlier in this thread, although many are small and probably wouldn't show up even if they were there.  

Thanks.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...