Seafire NN460, 894 Sqn

[85sqn]

Hi folks just some questions about the scheme of this aircraft. i have the Xtradecal sheet showing this aircraft with half a red spinner, India White centred roundels and sky coloured codes. It is said to be 807 Sqn which I believe is a miss-type and it is shown in 'Seafire from the cockpit' and the latest 'Sqns of the Fleet Air Arm'  striking its prop on HMS Indegatigables deck.

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/X48094

 

I believe it should have white centred roundels, white or medium sea grey codes. I am unsure about the spinner though.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Cheers 

 

Nick

[Grey Beema]

Sorry Nick cant answer your question but I will ask another.

One side of the fuselage is H6^oZ and the other is H^o6Z, I recall something in the back of my head (and probably wrong) about FAA marking elements and I cant remember how they differed from the RAF..

[Graham Boak]

894 sq for sure.  The only photo I can track down is the one in the 3rd edition of FAA squadrons, which to me suggests the aircraft is being recovered after a port undercarriage failure - the three visible propeller blades all appear to be ok.  At about this time it was written off after a barrier collision.  Obviously there is another photo I can't find, if Grey can see the other side.

 

EDIT; In Ray Sturtivant's Fleet Air Arm at War, there are two photos, one showing H6.Z entering the barrier after a starboard undercarriage collapse, then the same photo as described above.

 

I found two identical profiles, in the Warpaint and in On Target Profiles 5.  They are the same as the one with the Hannants sheet.  The photos areunhelpful as far as spinner colours go, but I'm inclined to discount red for the obvious reasons in that theatre.  Most Seafires seem to have had Sky spinners.

 

Geoff Thomas states that the FAA had white centres to the roundels when in the Indian Ocean.  I believe Nick Millman says the same, but I don't know whether or not he is taking it from Thomas.  It is very difficult if not impossible to be certain in many photos, but whereas there are photos of RAF aircraft where it is quite clear that the centres are not pure white, I don't know of any FAA photo that even hints otherwise.

 

Grey: Early in the war, H would imply the carrier, 6 the senior fighter unit on the carrier, and Z the individual aircraft in the squadron.  This logic rather got lost as the war progressed, but although I can't find confirmation in Squadrons of the FAA, H for Indefatigable would be compatible with this system (Hermes having been lost).  H had been used by Hunter, which changed to D at about the time Indefatigable arrived.  Big boys rule.  In the early years it was common not to carry the carrier identifier, as there were rarely more than one anyway, and in those cases it was normal to separate the unit letter and the individual code, but there was no strict rule as in the RAF.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Graham Boak

[Seahawk]

Sturtivant's FAA Aircraft 1939-1945 says NN460 served with 894 Sq in Indefatigable and that the crash into the barrier took place on 1 Jan 1945.  An inconvenient truth is that it also says the code was "H6X".  I can't see the serial in either of the photos you mention so (a) is everyone just copying each other (sorry, "drawing on others' research") in identifying "H6Z" as NN460 or (b) is this a case of an rare error in the writings of St Sturtivant?  Your guess is as good as mine.

 

On the evidence of Geoff Thomas I tend to discount artwork depicting FAA East Indies Fleet aircraft with India Blue roundel centres as ill-informed extrapolation from RAF SEAC practice.  IIRC Thomas found a paper trail documenting the RAF's change from an initial white centre to a pale blue one but found no similar instruction on the FAA side.  So I'm right with Graham on that one.

 

FAA codes comprised 3 separate elements, letter/number/letter, as Graham describes.  As long as they appeared in the same order, they could be arranged as made best sense with the available fuselage space or even as the CO wished so H6Z could appear as H6Z, H-6Z or H6-Z.  But I stress the elements will always appear in the same order (something that Airfix repeatedly get wrong - ISTR that one Wildcat IV markings option gets it right and the other wrong!).

 

Codes: from the photo in Seafire From The Cockpit they are clearly not white like the roundel centre.  I'm not well-informed enough to decide whether they are grey or Sky.  Personally, I'd incline towards Sky.

 

Spinner colour: the spinner is manifestly not painted half and half.  Total guess but I could be tempted by roundel blue with a white spinner backplate.

 

Note other interesting features from the photo in Squadrons of the FAA:

• the two-tone halo around the fuselage roundel where the original 36" European roundel has been painted out.
• the wing roundels are not in the prescribed format, which was to retain the original outer diameter of the blue/red roundel but simply extend the blue inwards to leave only a 9" white centre.  There is a halo outside the dark blue of H6Z's roundel which suggests it's been repainted to a smaller diameter.
• to me it looks as if the fin flash has simply had the red painted out in EDSG because I can't see any tonal difference between that portion of the fin and the adjoining upper surface of the tailplane.  (I know the caption in Seafire From The Cockpit says the red had been retained but the From The Cockpit series books are frequently shaky on camouflage and marking questions, witness the same caption not apparently understanding the difference between East Indies Fleet roundels and British Pacific Fleet roundels and bars.)  

Hope this helps.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Seahawk

[Graham Boak]

Fleet Air Arm at War has the accident on 4th January, described as the same day as the raid on Pangkalan Brandan. FAA Aircraft of WW2 has the 6th (not the 1st) as does Squadrons of the FAA.

 

Given that many of the spinners are in Sky, perhaps that's more likely as a backplate colour?

[Seahawk]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Fleet Air Arm at War has the accident on 4th January, described as the same day as the raid on Pangkalan Brandan. FAA Aircraft of WW2 has the 6th (not the 1st) as does Squadrons of the FAA.

 

Given that many of the spinners are in Sky, perhaps that's more likely as a backplate colour?

1.  Re 6th v 1st: oops, shows how easily transcription errors can creep in.  Thanks for picking it up.  Apologies, all.

2.  Good point: I agree.

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, 85sqn said:

i have the Xtradecal sheet showing this aircraft with half a red spinner, India White centred roundels and sky coloured codes. It is said to be 807 Sqn which I believe is a miss-type and it is shown in 'Seafire from the cockpit' and the latest 'Sqns of the Fleet Air Arm'  striking its prop on HMS Indegatigables deck.

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/X48094

 

I believe it should have white centred roundels, white or medium sea grey codes. I am unsure about the spinner though.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Xtradecal make too many guesses rather than asking around,  for  example here....

here'sthe profile

OK,  here's the photo

 

usual cobblers from Xtradecal,  in this case the 'split spinner'  effect is the arrestor cable has just scratched the paint off the spinner.

The letters look a similar tone to the roundel centre,  and if they eliminated the red from  the fusleage and wings,  why leave the fin?

 

You'd be  hard pressed to say more from  this image...

 

I'd suggest this time for a notification to @iang   as he may well be able to add some useful additional information.

 

the few colour photos of BEIF show white roundel /fin flash  and letter in maybe Sky? Sky Grey? White?

eg

Avenger receiving a torpedo. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

Hellcat by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

HTH

 

 

[85sqn]

Hi chaps, thanks for all your responses, I'm glad I've aired this out. I'm trying to move away from using decals but seeing Xtradecal made this 894 option I thought I'd give it a go. I have to say I've been disappointed with them a few times lately. It seems they find a colour profile they like (in this case from the On Target series) and use it as gospel truth. 

 

2 hours ago, Seahawk said:

 

Codes: from the photo in Seafire From The Cockpit they are clearly not white like the roundel centre.  I'm not well-informed enough to decide whether they are grey or Sky.  Personally, I'd incline towards Sky.

 

Spinner colour: the spinner is manifestly not painted half and half.  Total guess but I could be tempted by roundel blue with a white spinner backplate.

• to me it looks as if the fin flash has simply had the red painted out in EDSG because I can't see any tonal difference between that portion of the fin and the adjoining upper surface of the tailplane.  (I know the caption in Seafire From The Cockpit says the red had been retained but the From The Cockpit series books are frequently shaky on camouflage and marking.

It's amazing how photos can appear tonally different in different publications. I totally agree with with the suggestion of the codes here and now I'm leaning towards sky or Medium grey. Page 385 of the older 'Sqns of the FAA' shows 'H6Y' of the same sqn and the codes are not as bright as the roundels.

 

Page 267 of the latest 'Sqns of the FAA' really shows the point about EDSG covering the red- you can see how it  blends with the rest of the camo on the the fin and tailplane. 

 

Did Indefatigables Seafires use flight colours? I know Iang has mentioned this before with Formidables corsair Sqn's.

 

I have Operation Lentil as 4th Jan, if that is when the seafire pranged. 

 

Thanks for your help everyone.

[Graham Boak]

Given the date of the operation, I suggest that the crash was on the 4th but they spent a couple of days deciding whether to repair it or not.  Either that or the paperwork was written on the 6th.

[iang]

The date is the 6th January 1945, according to the Admiralty documents I have.

 

On 4th, the day of Operation Lentil,  the only complete loss was a Firefly that ditched astern of Indefatigable (the crew being rescued by Kempenfelt). This was DT936:4S  (S/Lt Tucker and S/L Miller). As an interesting aside, Indefatigable's Seafires were assigned CAP for Lentil, and from 0610 to 1230, 36 routine Seafire sorties were flown without incident. At 1635  4 F.III were scrambled to intercept  a bogey detected by Type 281 radar at a distance of 38 miles. These failed to make an intercept having been vectored too low. Another 4 F.III were brought to readiness and scrambled at 1715 and vectored to 15,000 feet; again failing to make an intercept. The bogey was also briefly engaged by Indefatigable's 4.5". The aircraft dropped four bombs, which fell five miles to starboard. These 8  F.III Seafires were landed on between 1750 and 1815 (F.IIIs were referred to as  "high chickens" in Indefatigable's report on flying operations). Flying concluded at 1819, when there was a Firefly barrier crash in the fading light (not repairable on board).  I don't know the identity of this Firefly.

 

0n 5th, Seafires carried out ADDls. There was one Seafire incident, when S/Lt Hockley  887 landed on in LR809, but while taking off, Hockley swung the undercarriage up before becoming completely airborne (Cat. HX). The only other barrier crash involved a Firefly, S/Lt Stott DT978:4B (Cat. ZZ), which landed heavily due to the movement of the ship.

 

On 6th, in mock battle practice between the carrier force, there were a number of incidents involving 894 Seafires:  S/Lt Morgan in PP935 stalled into the round down, the starboard oleo collapsed and crashed into barrier (Cat. HT); S/Lt Morgan had another barrier crash in NN460:H6X; and S/Lt Gibson's long range tank struck the underside of the fuselage when jettisoned. I don't know the identity of Gibson's Seafire or how much damaged was caused. The only other incident that day was the loss of Cheeseman's Firefly, DT943:4A, which ditched while in the landing circuit due to shortage of fuel. 

 

So it is possible that PP935 is H6Z. I have 3 photographs of the landing incident involving H6Z, which fit the description given above,  and in one of them I'm sure the serial would be readable on a decent print, but mine is a poor quality copy. However, I'll scan it and see if any part is clear.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by iang

[Graham Boak]

One minor point.  There is a difference between the two artworks.  The Warpaint (Richard Caruana) shows taller slender codes than those in the On Target Profile (Jon Freeman).  The Xtradecal artwork above seems closer to that of the Warpaint.  These codes are quite distinctive, and to my eye rather an attractive option for a Merlin Seafire.  It isn't clear quite how much taller they actually were, but they do appear so from their proportions. 

[85sqn]

Okay thanks Graham.

 

one further question, is that a 45 gallon slipper?

 

Nick

[Denford]

13 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Given the date of the operation, I suggest that the crash was on the 4th but they spent a couple of days deciding whether to repair it or not.  Either that or the paperwork was written on the 6th.

Or simply that because of the backlog of work and they didn't get around to it till 6th

[ClaudioN]

20 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Grey: Early in the war, H would imply the carrier, 6 the senior fighter unit on the carrier, and Z the individual aircraft in the squadron.  This logic rather got lost as the war progressed, but although I can't find confirmation in Squadrons of the FAA, H for Indefatigable would be compatible with this system (Hermes having been lost).  H had been used by Hunter, which changed to D at about the time Indefatigable arrived.  Big boys rule.  In the early years it was common not to carry the carrier identifier, as there were rarely more than one anyway, and in those cases it was normal to separate the unit letter and the individual code, but there was no strict rule as in the RAF.

Between late '43 and mid '45 the FAA organised its units by Wings, i.e., Fighter Wings and TBR Wings. 'D' was for the 4th Fighter Wing, spread among three escort carriers one of which was Hunter (807 Sqn.). 'H' was the identifying letter for the 24th Fighter Wing aboard Indefatigable (887 and 894 Sqns.). The wing identifier (when carried) replaced the carrier identifier in the letter-number-letter code.

 

HTH

Claudio

[85sqn]

One further point I have noticed; under the 'Z' is evidence of repainting, could this have been coded 'X' and repainted so the aircraft is therefore NN460?

[Seahawk]

3 hours ago, 85sqn said:

One further point I have noticed; under the 'Z' is evidence of repainting, could this have been coded 'X' and repainted so the aircraft is therefore NN460?

Don't think so.  As I read iang's post there were 2 barrier crashes on 6 January: one involved NN460/H6X (and Sturtivant agrees the serial/code correlation), the other PP935.  Assuming that the dates of the photos of H6Z's accident are correct, the evidence tends IMHO to point towards H6Z being PP935 (for which Sturtivant offers no code correlation).

[85sqn]

In that case perhaps the over painting is from the previous codes ‘P6’ which were used prior to Dec 44.