Jump to content


Sadly Missed
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edgar

  1. The stiffeners were fitted, to the Va & Vb, from 16-7-42. Any Mk.I & 2 aircraft, in training units, which needed a damaged wing to be replaced, usually had the Mk.V versions fitted. The Vc also had strengthening fitted, but it was normally internal to the wells, and was fitted from 14-8-42.
  2. Upper wing roundels were produced to a set formula, and their size depended, largely, on the chord; take the wingspan, divide by 3, measure that distance out from the fuselage centre line, and that sets the centre of the roundel. Each roundel was supposed to fill the available space, without encroaching on the aileron, de-icer boot, or yellow leading edge.
  3. "Two chutes for landing flares" were fitted, as visible in that photo, from September 1936, and the launching was improved from July 1940. One tube was deleted, on the Mark V, in November 1941; I've no idea when the other was deleted. 14-6-40 an "automatic recognition device" (rather like a Colt six-gun, minus handle and barrel) was fitted, set to fire downwards, roughly level with the position of the starboard access hatch. This was removed, and replaced in the fuselage spine, so as to fire upwards, in April 1941. 13-6-40 a "means of draining the fuselage" was introduced, which could, quite simply, be the hole near the tail wheel. It's much too far back to be the automatic recognition device.
  4. 2-6-40 an order was issued that underside roundels should be painted as large as possible without encroaching on the ailerons. 10-6-40 a notification was issued that, due to shortage of Sky, black/white scheme would remain for now. 12-6-40 Glosters (and presumably other manufacturers) were told to remove the black/white plus roundels and start painting fighters in Sky, with immediate effect.
  5. It isn't a case of attitude; I have travelled all over this country, calling on various rebuilders, and I photographed those seats (and others) because of their different shades of green (and I've never been diagnosed as colour blind.) Now I'm told that, in spite of 50+ years experience in photography, my photos can't be trusted; however a photo of a civilian aircraft, built in 1932, crashed and written off in 1938, then spent 35 years in wind, snow, rain and sun on a Scottish hillside, is accepted, without question, as having a pristine example of a wartime airframe interior. At the moment I'm too unwell to bother with getting involved in this thread, any more, but, with other contentious threads over the last few weeks, it is becoming plain, to me, that, if one aspect of my research can't be trusted, then neither can the rest, so what is the point of continuing with what is becoming a complete waste of time?
  6. So, no matter how often I tell you that British Standards said that they had nothing to do with wartime aircraft colours, you persist in trying to find some (non-existent) link. Truly I am wasting my time in my researches, so it is time for me to quit and tell you to do your own.
  7. This is the other side of the same seat, and the fastening is clear of any moving parts; I've no idea of the Mark, since it was sitting in the middle of an aircraft rebuilder's shop floor, surrounded by half a dozen airframes (Mk.IX would seem favourite, though.)
  8. I haven't seen a seat with the early Sutton arrangement, so can only guess that they used, somehow, the stiffening bar underneath as an anchor point. The pin wasn't fitted to strap 2 (actually right thigh) or 3 (left thigh); it was on strap 1 (left shoulder,) and the clip was attached to strap 4 (right shoulder.) With no mechanism on the left seat wall, there was no need for a slot. The "flare," on the left wall, was to give the ripcord room, so that it didn't chafe; it was also lined with basil leather, to help with that. The slot, in the backrest, remains a bone of contention; on metal seats it was designed for the shoulder straps to pass through, but a friend, who works on Spitfires, maintains that the plastic would never have coped with the strain; he also points out that you never see marks, on the slot, which would have been caused by the straps. He uses it as a simple handhold, since the Spitfire seat can only be removed with it at the lowest point of its travel, and, especially with the extra weight of armour plate, it takes two to lift it out, and a third to take it from them.
  9. Strange, that, when the above instruction just calls for "plain Mediterranean blue." Perhaps you should consider the possibility that Dark and Light only appeared when one was lightened into an underside colour. I don't have the chip (it belongs in Kew, after all.)
  10. He still has the original kit, with its instructions; now can we just move on, please?
  11. Funny that, since the instruction booklet clearly states "90" (a friend of mine still has a copy.)
  12. Not generally known is that a GM/MPC/Palitoy issue of the 1/24 Spitfire advocated painting the cockpit 90, which doesn't match with 90 being Sky. Perhaps I should also add that, when given access to panels removed from AR213, after its first-ever rebuild, we found that the interior colour was an exact match for the 90 colour chip supplied in Humbrol's "The Colour System" folder.
  13. "sea camouflage" not maritime scheme, and, at the time, TSS seemed logical, but research moves on (at least mine does,) and new information comes up at all sorts of odd times, and places. This is the header of the instruction (dated 30-4-42) for the Hurricanes due to be sent up from the south, but which were apparently rejected by Malta as being pointless. The signal, from Malta, asking for sea camouflage for Spitfires was dated 7-4-42. Of course there will be those who argue that sea camouflage for Hurricanes wasn't necessarily the same as sea camouflage for Spitfires, but I prefer to leave that to those who choose to argue for the sake of it. Accepted by whom, since there's no evidence that there were any Spitfires delivered to Malta in TSS; I repeat, Malta asked for "sea camouflage," and they were smack in the middle of the Mediterranean SEA. Surprise, Mediterranean Blue is dark. No, they don't. Months ago, I showed, on here, a photo of three colour chips, supplied by Malta at the end of 1935, requesting paint supplies; they were matched to the bleached stone, red earth, and BLUE SEA surrounding the island. Given the way Malta was treated, it's doubtful they ever got any, and those chips have since been studiously ignored. Due to the streaky, hand-brushed nature of the blue chip, it's proved impossible to scan, but it's a darned sight closer to Mediterranean Blue than EDSG. As late as 2-6-43, Malta was still asking for dark blue to be applied to the upper surfaces of their high-altitude Spitfires, instead of MSG; Middle East Command told them they could have green/brown because they were the only colours they had (pointer to Park's Spitfire, perhaps?).
  14. So, it's your contention, then, that, when the Air Ministry (and Malta) asked for aircraft (including Hurricanes) to be painted Dark Mediterranean Blue, everybody totally ignored the instruction, and did as they liked?
  15. If it was delivered to Malta direct in 1943, the laid-down scheme was Day Fighter over Light Mediterranean Blue.
  16. Sky started life as an invention of Sidney Cotton, who watched a light green aircraft take off and swiftly disappear against the sky background. He devised his own similar colour, called it "Camotint," and had it painted on "his" P,R, aircraft. When he was unceremoniously booted out by the Air Ministry, his colour was taken over and renamed Sky, and that's where the fun started, because the A.M. insisted on describing it as a duck egg blue, and arguments have raged ever since. The colour was produced in cellulose, distemper and synthetic variants (at least,) all of which would have had differing reactions to the extremes of sun and freezing cold experienced during flight. Post-war, the colour was added to the British Standards system, under B.S.381C:210, and was used on F.A.A. aircraft, though usually with a covering gloss varnish, which tended to change the colour's richness. Finally, wartime paint manufacturers were issued with colour samples (usually by Farnborough,) so all Sky paints were supposed to be identical in appearance.
  17. The parachute had to be kept bone-dry, since any moisture could cause panels to stick together, and/or the silk start to rot. Normal practice was to keep parachutes with personal equipment, and, after 4 weeks, they would be returned for opening up, and hanging up for airing. Parachute packing departments were supposed to be kept at no less than 50 degrees (Fahrenheit presumably) to assist with the airing/drying process.
  • Create New...