Jump to content

Handley Page Heyford camouflage


XF442

Recommended Posts

If it was orthochromatic film, then it would certainly rule out a yellow option for the overall paint, but the red would appear darker than the blue in the roundel and finflash. At this magnification and quality it is impossible to be sure, but it doesn't look like it. Also I can't see a yellow ring around the roundel - the proportions appear more like a three-colour roundel. However, the "flare" effect of the white (making the white ring appear wider than it really is) could be hiding this. Tantalisingly indeterminate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was orthochromatic film, then it would certainly rule out a yellow option for the overall paint, but the red would appear darker than the blue in the roundel and finflash. At this magnification and quality it is impossible to be sure, but it doesn't look like it. Also I can't see a yellow ring around the roundel - the proportions appear more like a three-colour roundel. However, the "flare" effect of the white (making the white ring appear wider than it really is) could be hiding this. Tantalisingly indeterminate.

To quote from C H Barnes, Handley Page (Putnams). "The Heyford was the last heavy bomber biplane to serve with the RAF. (Early in 1940 at least seven Yellow painted Heyfords) (K4027,4030,5193,6866,6868,and 6869) were still in use as bombing trainers and the last two believed to be K4029 and K5184 remained in use till April 1941 as tugs for the first secret Horsa experiments and one (probably K5184) was stored at Cardington still apparently airworthy under armed guard until August 1944."

I would suggest that they were most certainly topped off with DG/DB . In the poor but interesting photo note the contrast with the top of the engine cowl and spats. That is certainly not ortho film in my estimate and I think we're looking at a largely Yellow Heyford. This is a professional photo and Otho would not be the prefered medium.

John

Edited by John Aero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that they were most certainly topped off with DG/DG . In the poor but interesting photo note the contrast with the top of the engine cowl and spats. That is not otho film in my estimate and I think we're looking at a largely Yellow Heyford. This is a profesional photo and Otho would not be the prefered medium.

Same thought occurred to me when looking at a colour photo of some Henleys in summer 1939 on the cover of "Wings Over Carew" (Deric Brock, 1989). Aircraft are in overall yellow with camouflage on the wing tops, fin (but not rudder) and fuselage top decking (above a line running just above the exhausts), with Type A roundels. Could plausibly be the same scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no specialist knowledge here whatsoever, but the only observation I would make is that if the Heyford is yellow, it's a very much darker shade than the yellow on the Hampden's propellor tips.....especially if you factor in the 'further away/lighter appearance' effect noted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm annoyed with myself for not spotting this: I did look in the Putnam but mainly with the intention of discounting the comment that Mk.IIIs had canopies (they didn't). However, Air Britain's book The K File postdates the Putnam by some 20 years, so I think their aircraft histories are more likely to be correct. The 1944 Heyford is myth, sadly. D-Day stripes on a Heyford - wow!

Here's a copy of the relevant parts from my earlier posting

"All the Mk.Is and IIs were gone before the outbreak of war, but surviving Mk.IIIs carried on in 3BGS and 4BGS (Bomber Gunnery Schools) until scrapped June/July/August 1940, together with other remaining airframes in MUs. So any of these (perhaps a score, I didn't count) could be contenders. However, two survived into 1941 as glider tugs for BA Swallows with the RAE, K6874 from November 1940 to February 1941, then scrapped, K5184 from July 1940. This last then did catapult launch trials (!) and Hotspur towing trials, scrapped in April 1941."

Of the serials quoted by John K4027, 4029 and 4030 were all Mk.IIs and struck off charge in late 1939. The other four bombing trainers were all with 4 BGS (ex-4 AOS) together with other Heyfords, and more were at 3 BGS, until scrapped as stated above. If anyone wants the serials I can dig them out.

What is clear, however, is that a fair number of Heyfords were still in squadron service after the introduction of disruptive camouflage on UK bombers in April 1937, and so can be expected to be in DG/DE/Night colours. Unless of course some specific order excusing them was issued. Bowyer's Bombing Colours (2) is silent on the subject of Heyfords.

The high demarcation was standard on trainers until Nov. 7 1940.

My understanding is that fabric-covered aircraft needed recovering fairly regularly - 2 years max? Perhaps you can comment on that, John? In which case the survival of a NIVO-painted airframe to later than May 1940 seems unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm annoyed with myself for not spotting this: I did look in the Putnam but mainly with the intention of discounting the comment that Mk.IIIs had canopies (they didn't). However, Air Britain's book The K File postdates the Putnam by some 20 years, so I think their aircraft histories are more likely to be correct. The 1944 Heyford is myth, sadly. D-Day stripes on a Heyford - wow!

Here's a copy of the relevant parts from my earlier posting

"All the Mk.Is and IIs were gone before the outbreak of war, but surviving Mk.IIIs carried on in 3BGS and 4BGS (Bomber Gunnery Schools) until scrapped June/July/August 1940, together with other remaining airframes in MUs. So any of these (perhaps a score, I didn't count) could be contenders. However, two survived into 1941 as glider tugs for BA Swallows with the RAE, K6874 from November 1940 to February 1941, then scrapped, K5184 from July 1940. This last then did catapult launch trials (!) and Hotspur towing trials, scrapped in April 1941."

Of the serials quoted by John K4027, 4029 and 4030 were all Mk.IIs and struck off charge in late 1939. The other four bombing trainers were all with 4 BGS (ex-4 AOS) together with other Heyfords, and more were at 3 BGS, until scrapped as stated above. If anyone wants the serials I can dig them out.

What is clear, however, is that a fair number of Heyfords were still in squadron service after the introduction of disruptive camouflage on UK bombers in April 1937, and so can be expected to be in DG/DE/Night colours. Unless of course some specific order excusing them was issued. Bowyer's Bombing Colours (2) is silent on the subject of Heyfords.

The high demarcation was standard on trainers until Nov. 7 1940.

My understanding is that fabric-covered aircraft needed recovering fairly regularly - 2 years max? Perhaps you can comment on that, John? In which case the survival of a NIVO-painted airframe to later than May 1940 seems unlikely.

To make one thing clear. I do think that photo shows a Heyford with yellow undersides and I would definitely assume that the upper surfaces are DG/DE. I think also that by 1939 these a/c were no longer "bombers" but re-roled as Bombing trainers for which as old bombers they were suberbly equipped, so they are therefore carrying an appropiate colour scheme for the role, Yellow/DG/DE, and in the case of the glider towing they were simply re-assigned. I am also sure that the photo is not Ortho. As to your tongue in cheek remark re the D Day stripes I think I would strike it out because you have a reputation for accuracy and some bugger's bound to misquote you. LOL.

I have looked through my books for re-covering period data and so far I haven't found any time span but I think it would have been left to a "check on inspection schedule" because of different use and exposure, but I agree that Nivo wouldn't have lasted long. Now here's a thought. If a Yellow /DG/DE painted Heyford was photographed with Ortho then the Yellow would give the appearance of Nivo/DG/DE and only the roundels would give it away.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we should look for photos of Heyfords with red/white/blue (A) roundels? I can't think of any others offhand. None in K File.

Other bombers in Temperate Land appear to have started with red/white/blue/yellow (A1) roundels, changed to red/blue (B) roundels on tthe fuselage late in 1938, then gone back to red/white/blue (A) at a date I haven't found, but appears to be some time in 1939. So we could have Heyfords in TLS with any one of these three options. Then Yellow (high demarcation), without then with fin flashes and roundels with yellow outer surrounds, then low demarcation (maybe!). Well, that certainly widens the options for colours and markings from just plain NIVO.

I have found evidence for coding on these trainers. Air Britain's RAF Flying Training and Support Units, for 4 AOS, has Heyford K6889/F. No photos, but the same book has a photo of an Overstrand K4563 with 10 BGS 1940, with this high demarcation Yellow and TLS tops. Also Wallaces of 2 ATS, but I think that photos of this scheme on single-engined types are common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we should look for photos of Heyfords with red/white/blue (A) roundels? I can't think of any others offhand. None in K File.

Other bombers in Temperate Land appear to have started with red/white/blue/yellow (A1) roundels, changed to red/blue (B) roundels on tthe fuselage late in 1938, then gone back to red/white/blue (A) at a date I haven't found, but appears to be some time in 1939. So we could have Heyfords in TLS with any one of these three options. Then Yellow (high demarcation), without then with fin flashes and roundels with yellow outer surrounds, then low demarcation (maybe!). Well, that certainly widens the options for colours and markings from just plain NIVO.

I have found evidence for coding on these trainers. Air Britain's RAF Flying Training and Support Units, for 4 AOS, has Heyford K6889/F. No photos, but the same book has a photo of an Overstrand K4563 with 10 BGS 1940, with this high demarcation Yellow and TLS tops. Also Wallaces of 2 ATS, but I think that photos of this scheme on single-engined types are common.

The Manx Aviation & Military Museum archives have got a photo of a Heyford which was visiting RAF Jurby in 1940. It has type A roundel on the fuselage side and there's no evidence of it being anything other than one dark colour overall ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating. I'm not sure I can justify a trip to the IoM just to see that photo, although I dare say there are lots more in the Jurby museum (and it is a good place to visit anyway). Do you have access to this museum? Do they sell copies of this photo, and if so how much? An obvious question: - is it orthochromatic? If so yellow will look dark, and the red of the roundel will be darker than the blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating. I'm not sure I can justify a trip to the IoM just to see that photo, although I dare say there are lots more in the Jurby museum (and it is a good place to visit anyway). Do you have access to this museum? Do they sell copies of this photo, and if so how much? An obvious question: - is it orthochromatic? If so yellow will look dark, and the red of the roundel will be darker than the blue.

I run the Manx Aviation & Military Museum, Graham. So far as I know, the Jurby Museum contains buses and little else.

PM me your email address and I'll send you a copy of the photo. It was probably taken using ortho as the red is very dark. There are only 3 colours in the roundel and the outer ring is almost the full depth of the fuselage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my assumptions about the Hampden/Heyford photo look as though they're wrong, but what a fascinating discussion subsequently. Thanks guys - I've learnt a lot, especially as I have a Heyford in the stash!

A second look at the Hampden/Heyford photo just now and underwing serials and roundels suddenly much more apparrent, and I will concede that the fuselage roundels don't look as though they have a yellow ring. Also despite the quality of the scan is there really a hint of a high DG/DE demarkation line along the fuselage, or am I decieving myself?

Would seriously love to see the Isle of Man photo!

Edited by kitbasher2009
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ivor has sent me a copy, and is willing to have it posted if someone who knows how to will offer? Send him a PM.

The photo does appear to show a darker top decking and uppersurface of lower wing, and is ortho, so it does seem likely that it is (another) yellow one. But the evidence is not terribly clear..... No sign of serial or codes.

PS. 3 AOS/BGS was at Aldergrove, 4 AOS/BGS was at West Freugh....and 5 AOS/BGS was at Jurby. (For non-UK residents, they are all around/in the top end of the Irish Sea.) So they may have been quite a few such visits.

Edited by Graham Boak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ivor has sent me a copy, and is willing to have it posted if someone who knows how to will offer? Send him a PM.

The photo does appear to show a darker top decking and uppersurface of lower wing, and is ortho, so it does seem likely that it is (another) yellow one. But the evidence is not terribly clear..... No sign of serial or codes.

If I can help. Ivor is a customer of mine. I have PM'd him.

John

Edited by John Aero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This yellow bellied Heyford you mention...is that any relation to a yellow bellied sapsucker?

All kidding aside, I'm planning on making a 1/32 scale Heyford. I'm also considering making an electric powered radio control Heyford but I haven't decided on the scale yet.

I have a couple sets of plans for larger radio control model Heyfords plus plans of scale models of that plane and I am still gathering material for it (or them).

I may try to make a thin wall vacuform model in 1/32 and then see if I can get it to fly. I have been fascinated by the Heyford for years. I keep getting the impression that it was a standard biplane that slammed down so hard in a botched landing that the fuselage tore free of the lower wing and fused itself to the underside of the top wing.

I dunno, it sounds logical to me.

As I get the project started I'll take photos and keep everyone up on my progress (or regress).

Right now I am busy with a Stalingrad Winter here in Connecticut (USA). We are getting a snow storm each week. Last one dropped 16 inches on me. Another is due in a few days. All my free time is spent either shoveling snow :cold: or relaxing from my snow removal efforts with a good single malt scotch :drink: . I am very well relaxed these days.

Ssculptor

Edited by ssculptor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A yellow Heyford...surely the ultimate "Yellow Peril"!!

You may think so, but I'm tempted to check the soc dates for Virginias.........

More conventional configurations were considered for the Heyford, but the final one gave good fields of fire for the gunners and rapid reloading of the bombs. Which was ok in dry weather but after rain the poor armourers got soaked to the skin wriggling under the bombbay/lower centresection. A retractable undercarriage was considered, but I haven't seen the drawing for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may think so, but I'm tempted to check the soc dates for Virginias.........

Found this excerpt in "Bomber Command and its aircraft" by Goulding/Moyes (dates from 1975):

"All of these obsolete aircraft [Note 1: Heyford and Hendon] were about to be replaced by modern monoplanes at that time [Note 2: September 1938] and there is no evidence to prove that any change to their existing finish was made. The Virginias of the Home Aircraft Depot at Henlow, however, did their existing all-dull red paint replaced by Dark Earth / Dark Green."

Anyway, I can't wait to see more pictures of a "yellow" Heyford! :)

Cheers

Chris

Edited by XF442
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camouflage for Bomber Command was introduced more than a year earlier than that, and the first Harrows in camouflage were even earlier. It makes a lot of sense to retain the NIVO scheme on aircraft that were due to leave service before any major refit would be due - there may even have been some rotation of aircraft between squadrons and MUs to achieve this. Fabric surfaces do have a fairly short life, and there'd be little point in a complete repaint to an obsolete scheme - other than to use up stocks of NIVO, I presume, but the paint may have been regarded as still being a stock item for possible future use. There is a picture in Combat Codes of a Heyford with unit codes being broken up, and it appears to be still in NIVO.

However, given Dick Ward's representation, it should be assumed that later evidence has been found that at least one Heyford was repainted to the new scheme. It would be good to find the photo.

This all changes once the aircraft leave frontline service and become trainers. A whole new set of camouflage instructions are appropriate, and an extended life expected. Reskinning will surely have been required on some, if not all, aircraft, even though only the newer Mk.IIIs were retained. There'd be no incentive to retain, retouch or renew NIVO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think JohnAero's photo puts paid to my clearly misplaced notion of ortho film being used for the 'Aeroplane' photos. Time for a letter to the Editor of Aeroplane Monthly for more Hampden/Heyford pictures in his magazine?

Edited by kitbasher2009
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent a some time in the company of Dick Ward on saturday evening at Chris Mckee's 50th birthday bash, and one of the obvious subjects in conversation was the Yellow Heyford/s. Dick couldn't recall any particular info as much of his library has been disposed of, but he did agree that they were a distict possibility. He did think that one of the schemes for the Matchbox Heyford was the addition of Dark Earth over Nivo but without his notes wouldn't commit himself. I hope I will hear some more on this subject from Dick. Harry Frazer-Mitchell the HP guru lives near to him but has I understand been in poor health. If Harry can be contacted we may yet learn something new.

As to Ivor's photo I am not too sure of what we are seeing as there is not enough airframe in view but the top of the nose is darker than the rest of the visible airframe. I think it's ortho film but as the roundel isn't visible I can't be 100%. It is a second generation scan and faded to boot but there is a possibility of the original being found. So watch this space. I wonder if a trawl through Aeroplane Spotter might reveal something?

John

Edited by John Aero
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...