Hello folks,
I have been thinking recently about building an RAF aircraft from the period of the Munich Crisis in 1938.(Mainly due to being inspired by Alfred Wainwrights 'A Pennine Journey' which had these events as a backdrop to the story)

Anyway,looking at the recent Airfix 1/72 Spitfire (A02010) I noticed that option A carries one large 'B type' roundel above the port wing and below the starboard wing only.This scheme also seems to have been carried by Hurricanes.

Does anyone know of the origins and duration of these interesting markings? It must have been short-lived as photographs and information on the internet throw up few results.

Many thanks for your time, Tim.

In the mid-1930s, it was common for aircraft (not just fighters) to carry a single roundel, and, when the mirror schemes were introduced, the roundel swapped sides as well. There is a photo of 19 Squadron, taken from above, in which can be seen two roundels (some different sizes,) one roundel, and even no roundel. Although the reason has never been exactly figured out, it could relate to the deletion of the old 4-colour (r/w/b/y) upper roundel, and its replacement with the better-known "Type B."
Farnborough were responsible for drawing up, and issuing the camouflage patterns, world-wide, and it was February, 1937, before they were asked to ensure that each drawing included two roundels on the upper surfaces.
Edgar

Thanks for that Edgar.It is an interesting period and does not appear to be modelled very frequently.I feel a trip into the loft insulation coming on.

Interesting comments from you both. I have noticed, in recent months, a gradual increase in the interest in "tween-the wars" and the period just prior to WWII on both sides of the Atlantic.

I hope so, it's a fascinating period - full of colour

Dennis

There is definitely something appealing about elegant open-cockpit biplanes like the Fury and Gauntlet rubbing shoulders with Spitfires and Hurricanes with their warpaint on.Most of these types are catered for now too in plastic from companies like AZ Models

It's still worth checking "old" authors, like Bruce Robertson, who points out, in his 1914-1937 "Bombing Colours" book, that 1930s day bombers carried bright red/blue roundels, with night bombers in dull colours (borne out by lists of colours in National Archives files.)
According to a card, held in the RAF Museum, the dull colours were discontinued in 1935, which rather calls into question the idea that fighters were in dull colours from the start of the war, when bombers weren't.
Edgar

I was thinking about using the A Model Hawker Fury decals (43 Sqn in camouflage) on the Matchbox kit.

This aircraft carries no upper wing markings at all,has 'B' type roundels on the fuselage and also carries them on the lower wing. Undersurfaces are the black/white scheme,with the aileron on the black wing painted silver. The fin carries the 'Fighting Cock' in the spearhead.

The red in the decals does appear to be bright red rather than the duller wartime shade. If they are useable I might stick with them then.

Thanks again.

Gloster were criticised in 1940 for still using prewar bright colours on their Hurricanes. To me, this implies strongly that the Gladiators were painted in bright colours, and no-one noticed. Any change logically would be linked to the introduction of camouflage on fighters in 1938: Gloster build excepted, of course.

Yes, I have read that in a couple of authoritative publications as well Graham but there may well be a simple but very good reason for their use in 1940.

For every change of markings, camouflage or anything to do with paint, oils, in other words "disposables" on any particular aircraft, a Modification with its associated number is issued and there is always a caveat appended at the end of the Mod write up which, from my experience, defeats the whole point of the mod.

In general terms, the caveat reads or read along the lines of, "Previous socks of paint/oil/consumable to be used up first prior to the implementation of this Modification." It could well be that Glosters had large stocks of the "old" brighter paint and were thus going along with the caveat. It could also be that Hawker-Siddeley, who were the controlling Company, decided to "dump" all their stocks of bright paint on Glosters and leave them to sort the problem out. Either way, Glosters were in a bit of a "Catch-22" situation.

That particular caveat did not apply to all changes in paint/oils/consumables however as the modification to change the paint scheme on the Harrier from gloss to matt carried the sentence, "Existing stocks of Gloss paint to be withdrawn from use" which basically gave the RAF Supply department permission to "bin" whatever was left and indent for stocks of the new matt paint.

DR

There's another common caveat to such changes, and that is "not until next overhaul/repaint", though I don't believe that would apply to AM rules on identification.

I don't really see HSA "ganging up" on Glosters to dump all their old paints - it hardly seems worth the aggro in transporting it! It would still be, in the end, up to the Glosters inspectors, with their RAF counterparts in the RTO's office, to ensure that correct colours were used. It seems likelier that Glosters simply missed the appropriate circular, for whatever reason. The point here is that Gosters were singled out, so the other companies WERE using dull colours. This would not have been done without authorisation, else we'd be seeing the paler blue on early production Hurricanes, which I don't believe we do.

There are times when the documentation can't be found, and we have to rely upon logic. Dull camouflage colours do not call for bright paint for the national markings. Is there evidence that bright colours were used? Yes, by Gloster. But others?

Here is where the Fury is at the moment.

The A Model decals didn't fill me with confidence so I used some duller roundels on an Xtradecal sheet and the 43 Sqn markings on an old Modeldecal set courtesy of my groaning decal stash. The prop has just been added for the photo's and is not yet painted. Sorry about the poor light.

For some reason Photobucket won't let me post the under side picture,it posts the first picture twice. Meh