Magpie22

Yes, I should have been more explicit. As an engineer I often forget that not all are as used to interpret drawings as I am. As you say, the rear fuseklage was cut back to accomodate the larger diameter of the Nene exhaust. Peter M

@Wez, If you do build that "Aussie version with those bloody ugly extra intakes", dont forget to shorten the rear fuselage as well as adding the MB seat. A couple more photos to add to Giorgio's excellent selection. A fuselage modified as a training aid. Gives a good idea of the rear fuselage panelling and positioning of the auxiliary intakes. This shot of the lower fusealge panel, at a knakker's yard, gives a good idea of the profile and plan shape of the intakes. This rough sketch I did a number of years ago when I modified a couple of Classic Airframes kits to an F.30 and FB.31 shows the shortened fusleage. Peter M

A few more shots showing the racks. A rough sketch I did back when I was making my bombed up Spit VIII. The bomb relase unit is mounted on to a rib in the outer cannon bay, precluding the fitting of four cannon. The bombs were carried single point suspension. The front stay was not adjustable but the rear stay had bolts with pads that could be tightened up to prevent the bomb from moving on the rack.

G'day Jay, All three squadrons in No. 80 Wing flew missions with bombs. As Geoffrey notes you will find some details in the squadron A.50s and A.51s. Generally British 250 pounders, from RAAF stocks, were used. Trials also cleared the US 250 lb bomb but, apart from trials, I have never seen a photo of a RAAF Spitfire with those bombs. Photos of aircraft carrying bombs are rare as they were only armed up shortly before the mission. Maybe some of these photos may help. Trials A/C at No. 7 RSU armed with British bombs under fuselage and starboard wing and US bomb aunder port wing. Note the cannon shelll deflctors fitted inboard of the bombs. These deflesctors appear to have not been used in operations. Normal technique was to bomb first, then straff. A No. 452 Sqn aircraft takes off with two British 250 pounders. The Wing Leader's A/C bombed up. Susan's retained his No. 79 Sqn machine, although he was Wing Leader by this time. Not the best of photos, but does show three No. 457 Sqn A/C bombed up and ready to go. The centre A/C has started its engine. A/C on the right is A58-635. HTH, Peter M GO PIES!!!!!!

Finn, My research, based partly on Spitfires sent to Australia, indicates that all Spitfire VC aircraft built by Supermarine and Westland were finished in the DFS. Those earmarked to be sent overseas then went to an MU where they were repainted, generally in the desert scheme, according to the theatre to which they were to be sent. Spitfire VC aircraft built by Castle Bromwich were finished in the desert scheme at the factory. Supermarine and Westland built A/C that went to Australia, (apart from the initial 48 that were loaded onto Nigerstown and Stirling Castle), were re-camouflaged in desert scheme at an MU before bing shipped. On arrival in Australia, they generally received another coat of paint when Foliage Green was applied over the Middle Stone. The CB aircraft were shippped in their factory applied desert camouflage. Peter M

Hi Vedran, I do not have "proof" that the term "sea scheme" definitively refered to the DFS, only my interviews of RAAF personnel, (some 30+), who were stationed in the UK and Malta at the time. They were there - more recent researchers, including me, were not. Their comments, although hearsay, also warrant consideration in any study of the subject. Also, bear in mind that very few would have had access to the camouflage AMOs and thus would have been ignorant of the correct terminology to be applied to the camouflage schemes. Thus the common usage of "land scheme", "sea scheme" and "maritime scheme". Equally, there is no "proof" that "sea scheme" means the TSS, the only "proof" being more recent interpretations of the term. You are quite welcome to place greater weight on the theories of published authors, than on those of other researchers if you wish. I do not claim to be the 'font of all knowledge' on the subject. I merely raised another possible meaning for the term "sea scheme". It is up to each individual to evaluate what has been written, and reach their own conclusion. As I said above, until we find a definitive document on the subject, the matter remains unresolved. If someone 'wired a MU in Scotland to repaint the Spitfires in DFS' they would indeed have been confused, as that would have been the scheme in which they had been received from Supermarine! Cheers, Peter M

Finn, I have served in the military and, later as a civilian, doing R&D work, so have seen the communication problem from both sides. In an ideal world everything in the military is covered by rules, orders, instructions, training etc, but the problem arises when circumstance takes us beyond those, and outside our 'comfort zone'. In the case of Malta, they received a number of Spitfires in an inappropriate camouflage. A signal had to be sent quickly to try and rectify the matter. Presumably the camouflage ANOs were not immediately at hand and an imprecise descrption of the required camouflage was given. The interpretation of what exactly was meant is somewhat confused. You believe that they meant the TSS and I believe that they meant the DFS. Either could be correct - we just won't know until someone finds definitive document. Till then, as you say, we can paint our models any way we deem to be correct. Cheers, Peter M

@Olmec Head said: "Having just received my copy of the Colour Conundrum Book, Mr Lucas does present a considerable body of research from contemporary resources. In terms of Operation Bowery, he refers to the RAF loose minute document outlining operation Oppidan (the precursor op to supply the Spitfires before embarkation for Op Bowery) at para 4 stated: 'Aircraft are to be sea camouflaged before embarkation'. I would support the common inference that this would be taken as the requirement for the aircraft to be finished in TSS. The document is also reproduced in Brian Cauchi's book page P159, if a bit unclear. " @ilj replied: "obviously, 'sea camouflaged' could refer to any colour scheme appropriate for deployment to a remote island with mostly over-water action expected - for example: blue it constantly amazes me how some people jump to conclusions based on no evidence at all e.g., is there any evidence at all indicating that distinctive Temperate Sea Scheme? nope 'common inference' and 'believed to be' are not part of a rational hypothetico-deductive process speculate away, but we simply do not know, based on the proffered text" I agree that Mr Lucas' research is quite detailed. However, I also believe that ilj is quite correct in pointing out that in neither of the quoted documents is the camouflage stated in definitive terms. The problem here is that assumptions are being made some fifty years after the event by people that were not there. I have been involved in research for many years and am well aware of a mistake that is often made when interpreting results and fitting them to confirm what we want to see - this is known as confirmatory bias, a trap into which we all too often fall. In August 1941, as the RAF moved to offensive operations across the channel, it changed the camouflage scheme for fighter aircraft to The Day Fighter Scheme, (Dark Green, Ocean Grey, Medium Sea Grey). This replaced the Temperate Land Scheme, (Dark Green, Dark Earth, Sky). The DFS was often colloquially referred to by pilots and ground crew as the "sea scheme", presumably because they saw it as a camouflage desingned for protection over the water of the channel. The TLS then became described as the "land scheme". I have interviewd many ex servicemen over the years and not one referred to the "Day Fighter Scheme" or the "Temperate Land Scheme" : they used the terminology "sea scheme" or "land scheme". If queried further on the colours, they would reply somewhat along the lines of, "you know, blue and green or brown and green". Neither, the RAF loose minute, nor the cypher telegram from H.Q. Malta, specifically describe the exact camouflage to be applied. Both use the term, "sea camouflage". As I have stated above, this was a popular contemporary term used to describe the Day Fighter Scheme. I would therefore postulate that, what was in fact required, was that the aircraft be finished in the Day Fighter Scheme. The Temperate Sea Scheme was often colloquially referred to as the "maritime scheme", yet both documents use the term "sea camouflage". Some twenty odd years ago I had some correspondence with Jack Rae who was with No. 603 Sqn, and flew one of the Spits off Wasp as part of Operation Calendar on 26 April. He was quite adamant that his aircraft was finished in the "sea scheme". He further described this as being, "the blue and green tonings" as on the Spitfires "that we flew in the UK". He did state that he did see "brown tonings" Spitfires arrive later on in July or August - he mentioned that they had come off Furious. Both Len Reid and John Bisley confirmed that they had flown desert camouflaged as well as "sea camouflaged" Spitfires from Malta. John also mentioned "blue and brown" on some Spitfires. Of course none of the above proves that there were no Temperate Sea Scheme Spitfires on Malta,. However, until someone comes up with a definitive document that proves otherwise, I will stick with my belief that the more likely intepretation of the term, "sea camouflage" means the DFS and not the TSS. Peter M, donning helmet and retreating to the bunker to await incoming! 🏳️

The Thais did in fact have over 90 Breguet 14A and 14B. The first eight were received circa 1919. Thereafter the Thais built at least another 88 in the first half of the 1920s. In Thai service they were initially designated B.Th.1, this later being changed to Type 24. At least two were still flying in 1945/46. Peter M

I have the copies below from Airfix Magazine, October 1968. I seem to be missing p.80. IIRC, it had no pics. If you want scans of any of the individual pics, PM me. Peter M

G'day BB, As Jim has stated, the first group of A-24-DE aircraft were from the 27th BG and came to Australia immediatly after the Louisiana war games. 52 aircraft had outer wing panels and enpennage removed and were loaded aboard SS Bloemfontein which docked in Brisbane on 21 December 1941. The aircraft were then trucked to RAAF Archerfield for assembly. They were originally intended to be sent to the Philippines but the rapid success there by the japanese negated this plan. The A-24s were reassigned to the ill fated Java campaign. Less than 20 returned to Australia. In February another 15 aircraft arrived and these, with the survivors, were allotted to equip the 8th BS of the 27th BG. On 31 March 1942 they moved up to 7 Mile Strip at Port Moresby in New Guinea. Their operations through April were escorted by the Kityhawks of No. 75 Sqn RAAF. The RAAF pilots had nothing but great admiration for the American aircrcrews in their outdated aircraft. Later, USAAF P-39 aircraft took over the escort duties. By the end of July, the squadron had been fought to a standstill and, with its few remaining aircraft, were evacuated to Australia. The few surviving A24-DE aircraft were assigned to observation, liaison, and communication duties and, as unit ''hacks'. One of the first group of A-24-DE aircraft on arrival at RAAF Archerfield. The 27th BG inscription can be seen under the A/C number on the fin. More Banshees awaiting assembly. I believe that these A/C are probably from the second group that arrived in February. Note the 'Navy style' rendering of the A/C serial on the fin. A couple of aircraft, probably from the second group, shortly after assembly. 41-15766 was lost in late July 1942. The 'Navy style' rendering of the serial and the yellow(?) aircraft number are clearly visible. The AWM shot you posted of 41-15801 was taken in February 1944, well after the exploits of the 8th BS operating out of Port Moresby. The aircraft had been assigned to a Liaison squadron by then. The shot below is a larger and, I think, clearer version of the one you posted. No. 4 Sqn did not move to New Guinea until November 1942 and White empennages weren't promulgated until August/September 1943. The photo shows a number of errors in the colour profile, particularly the serial, which is not stencilled but hand painted and, I believe, that the band on the cowling is painted on and not a reflection. I have not seen this band on any A24-DE of the 8th BS and I believe that it is peculiar to that particular aircraft or, to the Comunication Unit to which it belonged. If the aircraft had been painted accordance with the orders issued, it would also have had white leading edges on the outer wing panels added circa November 1943. Finally, the colour shot you posted is of an A-24B-DT, so the markings on it are irrelevant. These later, Tulsa built, aircraft, were produced in 1943, and were based on the SBD-5, whereas the earlier A-24-DE was based on the SBD-3. Most differences were internal equipment, but there are some noticable airframe differences, particularly around the front cowling. Not also the DF loop on the ventral fuselage. Below is another late war A-24B-DT. Apologies for the long winded reply to your question, but I hope the above helps provide some answers. Peter M

What makes you think it is BR124? I cant see the last digit. Do you have some other source? BR121 thru BR129 all went to Malta aboard USS Wasp. BR126 and BR128 went on Operation Bowery in May and the others, earlier, on operation Calendar in April. Peter M

HI Giorgio, A few comments re BR112. I find that I don't agree with some of your conclusions. I have not read Lucas' articles on the subject so don't know what he said in detail, but I do not agree with the statement you quote that all the aircraft of Operation Calendar 'were repainted in "mediterranean blue" before being embarked on the carrier. Lower surfaces seem to have been in Sky Blue.' My hypothesis follows: BR112 rolled off the production line in the standard RAF Day Fighter Scheme of Dark Green / Ocean Grey / Medium Sea grey with Sky spinner and fuselage band. After acceptance at No. 39 MU, she went to RAF Abbotsinch, (Glascow), for preparation for overseas shipment. RAF Orders at the time allowed for fighter aircraft serving abroad to be finished in the DFS, TLS, or Desert schemes. It is my belief that although most of the aircraft for overseas service were repainted in the Desert scheme before despatch, some were left in the DFS and some were repainted in the TLS. I believe that RAF Abbotsinch repainted eight Spitfires, that were earmarked to be placed aboard USS Wasp in April 1942, (Operation Calendar), in the TLS. These were: BP955, BP961, BP966, BP970, BR112, BR124, BR187, and BR190. Photos of several of these A/C show them to be in TLS and not in desert colours or DFS. Another point that distinguishes these Abbotsinch painted aircraft is the non-standard serial style. The mid-horizontal bar in the letters and numbers is not in the middle but above that level. This 'new' serial suggests to me that the A/C had had a complete repaint, most likely at Abbotsinch, after the A/C had left the factory. Photos of BR112. I realise that you already have these but I put them up to aid discussion. I am not conviced that this is a genuine colour shot but, accepting that it is for this discussion, it is quite clear to me that it has a two colour camouflage in the standard pattern. It appears to me that the colours are Dark Earth and Dark Green, i.e. the TLS. I have been told that it is finished in the TSS, but I can't see that - to me one of those colours is brown - I don't see a grey. From the same angle as the shot above, the two colour camouflage in the standard pattern is again evident. The rendering of the blue and red in the roundel and, the mid tone of the yellow, suggest that an Ortho film, possibly with a R/Y filter may have been used. This would have rendered Dark Earth and Dark Green in close tones. If the DFS scheme had been used, the contrast between the colours would have been much higher. The spinner is quite light in tone suggesting Sky. This shot gives another perspective on the spinner. Is it overpainted Sky or is the darker colour caused by water? I believe that yellow is also a possibility but, that is contrary to the colour shot if it is indeed an original and not 'colourised'. Note also the lack of a rear view mirror. Taken off by the pilot for added speed, or souvenired after the forced landing? The other side. Again the demarcation between the two colours of the standard pattern upper surface camouflage is evident near the roundel and in front of the coscpit area. To sum up, I do not believe that the A/C was painted in Mediterranean Blue, or any other blue for that matter. Probably just adding more confusion, Giorgio, but them's my thinks on the matter, FWIW. Peter M

Quote from Peter M Bowers, 'Fortress in the Sky', Sentry, 1976, ISBN 0-913194-04-02: "The modifications were made by SAAB ......... and consisted of stripping the interior, lengthening the nose three feet, and installing seats and supporting facilities for 14 passengers. The bomb bays were also modified to carry 2000 Kg (4400 lbs), of freight and the original bomb hoist were used as cargo hoists". Four photos accompany the single page entry. They clearly show the lengthened nose and windows in the nose and rear fuselage. PM me if you want scan of this page. Don't want to post here due to copyright. Peter M

Hi 'Chippy', Thanks for that info. I never realised that the Chipmunk had so many variations. Then again, considering my background, I should have realised that nothing is simple in the aviation world. 'Bout time you wrote a book on Chipmunks! I can see that my Chipmunk model is going to take a long time. Any thoughts on a Sasin Spraymaster conversion? I would love to lay my hands on some drawings of that beastie. BTW, I still remember counting 'bogies' in the stack over Sydney! Cheers, Peter M

Haven't been able to lay my hands on any close up shots at this time but, this shot may halp with scaling, using the wing chord as a datum. Shot is an enlargement of A52-529 after she was ground looped at Labuan when F/O Draper overshot on landing. HTH Peter M

Franck, I believe that H Models may have used one of a series of pic taken of A2-18 when she was in Sydney Harbour aboard HMAS Sydney circa 1939-40. Attached below are three of those shots. She was finished in overall V.84 Aluminium at the time and did not have a black planing bottom. She may not have seen service in the Pacific War, but did certainly see service aboard several ships prior to her demise in late 1941. Still well worthy of a model. Cheers, Peter M

Hi Geoffrey, Agree with you re A2-18 - it never served in the Pacific war, and certainly was never overall Yellow. Slightly incorrect re Yellow for trainers. An RAAF Minute dated 4 January 1940 ammended AGI C.11 and AGI F.1 to introduce overall K3/185 Yellow for elementary training aircraft. This was only for elementary trainers and did not apply to other types, certainly not for Seagull/Walrus. There was also an interim scheme that allowed for Yellow bands to be applied to existing elementary trainers finished in overall V.84 Aluminium. Cheers, Peter M

Generally the under wing roundels were left at the same OD, just the red painted out.

Back in January last year, Eduard asked if I would be willing to do such a volume. I replied in the affirmative, but wanted to cover both VB and VC. I have not heard from then since, so assume they have abandoned the idea. Peter M

I've never hit the ground so quickly. He had veered left off the runway, straight towards three of us taking photos, passed over us, (flat out on the grass), by a few feet and disappeared off through the trees. Somehow he managed to avoid hitting anything and climbed out. At least, with a Vokesplane, everything happened realtively slowly!

Hi Peter, I don't believe that the RAAF carried RAF paint stocks but, they did have their own eqivalents of a number of RAF paints, (e.g. K3/216 Dark Green, K3/209 Dark Earth, K3/225 Light Green, K3/223 Light Earth, and also the maritime greys), probably mainly intended for use on the training types and seaplanes received from the UK from 1940 on, e.g. Battle, Oxford, Anson, Tiger Moth, Walrus etc. A lot has been written about the RAAF colours not being exact matches to the RAF colours of the same name but, this is probably due to the quality of the samples being matched and well within experimental error. These were certainly listed in RAAF stores by early 1942, long before Spitfires started arriving so would have been available. Re Azure Blue: this came somewhat later, circa 1943. I can't comment on what paint would have been available at erection ADs, or at RSUs and ARDs. I suspect that the RAF equivalents were mainly sent to training units operating those aircraft, and may have not been available at the larger depots, but that is only supposition. Certainly Earth Brown, Foliage Green and, later, Sky Blue were readily available. I suspect that the RAF equivalents may have been used on early Spitfire VCs but, they seem to have been well and truly out of use by late 1943, when the Spitfire VIIIs started arriving. I have also read that Spitfire VCs were shipped with small quantities of paint for touch up on erection but, have never found any direct evidence of this. Perhaps one of out UK colleagues may have more info on this. Sorry I can't give a definite answer. Peter

Yeah, I went to many fly-ins in the 70's, 80's and 90's, mainly Victoria and NSW - Wangaratta, Albury, Ballarat, Point Cook, Swan Hill, Casey Field, and Bowral spring to mind. Almost got wiped out when a Volksplane veered off the runway at Wang. Also remember another A/C hit the power lines and crashed. Ah, the good old days, SAAA and AAAA! Peter

Nothing wrong with XXXX. It's not a bad drop. Castlemaine XXXX ale was in much demand by the RAAF squadrons in WWII.

I believe that colour scheme was first illustrated by Geoff Pentland in a booklet I co-authored with the late Frank Smith in 1970. At the time I disagreed with the artist, but I didn't own the publishing company, so the artwork stayed. It was based solely on B/W photos. I, also, am responsible for some other errors in the booklet. It is useful for the photos but forget the rest. I've learnt a lot more in my research over the last 50 years. I cannot comment on the quote from Franks' book as there are no references given, particularly for his quoted paint mix. I don't have the book so don't know what A/C he illustrated. A58-517, along with several other No. 79 Sqn A/C, was illustrated much more accurately in the instructions with the Eduard Aussie Eight boxings. I have interviewed Norm Smithells, (Norm Taylor at the time), pilot of A58-517, UP-F, and Hugh Kennare, pilot of A58-492, UP-B. Both were quite adamant that theirA/C were green and grey. These aircraft were originally serilled MT518 and MT594 and, aircraft in this serial range were being finished, at the factories, in RAF Dark Green, RAF Ocean Grey, and RAF Medium Sea Grey. They were shipped to Australia in these colours and received at No. 6 AD storage in those colours. I have never found any evidence to support the statement that No. 6 AD completely repainted those A/C. A close examination of photos shows mismatched colours where No. 6AD modified the roundels and painted over the RAF serial and rear fuselage Sky band. Certainly it was not in the purvey of the CO's of No. 79 Sqn or No. 6 AD to approve such a major change in their aircraft's camouflage. Such approval would have had to come from Group level, (SASO), or, in special circumsatnces from Wing level. Many modellers seem to assume that squadrons changed their camouflage like we change shirts. Not so! In the RAAF, squadrons were not equipped to do major repaints, only minor touch ups following minor damage. They could add A/C codes, squadron markings and, unofficial individual emblems. They could make no changes to national markings or A/C camouflage without higher level permission. Everything else had to go to a Repair and Servicing Unit or Aircraft Repair Depot. These latter units normally came under the control of a Group or Area HQ and were subject to relevent RAAF orders and instructions. Pull up P02482.008 from the AWM website. This is a shot of Malta Ace Len Reid sitting on the wing of his No. 79 Sqn Spitfire VIII, A58-522, (MT514). This A/C was also one of the I.E. of No. 79 Sqn and passed through No. 6 AD. A small, (in yellow), MT514 can be discerned stencilled on the engine cowling. These numbers were painted on when the A/C were broken down for packing in crates and shipment to Australia. They were there as an aid to ensure the correct parts were fitted on re-assembly. When the RAAF over-painted Spitfires, they did not re-apply these markings. Indeed they did not re-apply most srencils, including wing walkways etc - this is a good guide in asssessing whether an A/C has been repainted in RAAF service. Having said all that, I am reminded of a time many years ago when I was at a fly-in at Swan Hill. It was early morning and we were scrambling out of our tent for the dawn patrol. I looked across at VH-HET and, in the dawn's light, it looked as if it was painted in two tones of green, just like the Pentland illustration!! Keep your Earth Brown and Foliage Green. They were both used in modifying national markings, covering RAF serials etc, on A/C received from overseas, as well as specified for loacal production. HTH, Peter M