Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,116 Excellent

About mhaselden

Recent Profile Visitors

4,499 profile views
  1. Thanks....although it still doesn't show up in the UKNA search listings. Perhaps it was included in the Spitfire specifications file.
  2. Hmmm....I can't find F.10/36 in the UKNA records search. I can find F.7/30, F.5/34 and the specs for both the Hurricane and Spitfire. The Wikipedia page on RAF aircraft specifications also doesn't list an F.10/36 - it does include a spec 10/36 but that relates to the Beaufort. Any pointers to where I might find more details of F.10/36?
  3. Thanks for the pointer, Ed. Thanks Steve. Given that the book is 411 pages, I worried that it might simply be a precis of the specification, leaving out some critical details. I have the Morgan and Shacklady book but, alas, I put it into storage when we moved to Germany a year ago.
  4. The phrase "removing the arrestor hook" doesn't quite capture the extent of the modification. The RAF Buffalos replaced the rather blunt arrestor hook fairing with a much more streamlined version that had a light at the aft tip. Not sure if the SH kit has the RAF fairing; it may since the Dutch B339-23 airframes, which had the longer fuselage of the F2A-3, had that same pointed rear fuselage fairing.
  5. Here's another thread on 27 Sqn Blenheims in Singapore: Sadly, most of the image links are long-since defunct but I did copy all the images at the time (I was a right-click/save-as fiend when I saw the colour images). Happy to help with questions about specific airframes.
  6. I think the nearest aircraft does have the aluminium underside to the fuselage. There's a visible line just under the fuselage national marking which matches the one visible on the other airframe. For some reason, the lighting on the nearer aircraft is much worse, making the whole underside appear darker. The nose art is possible Jiminy Cricket:
  7. I need a copy of the full Air Ministry Specification F.37/34 which ultimately resulted in the Supermarine Spitfire. Anyone know where I might get a copy, preferably in PDF format, without having to visit the UK National Archives? Any help greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Mark
  8. A cursory glance at Stuart Lloyd's.book on FAA camouflage shows Skuas still in silver dope in the autumn of 1939 and a Swordfish floatplane still uncamouflaged as late as January 1940. It's possible this Walrus was still in silver dope but we may never know for sure.
  9. 101 means a basic intro to that subject at the undergrad level.
  10. IIRC the "standard" aircraft complement for fighter squadrons was 12 "Initial Equipment" and 6 "Immediate Reserve" airframes. The number of pilots is driven by the need to provide squadron-level strength while allowing for leave, rest days etc....plus it's easier to replace aircraft than pilots.
  11. Apologies...I meant Tropical Sea Scheme not Temperate. I've corrected the error in my previous post. It's pretty clear that the Catalinas based at Singapore were painted in Temperate Sea Scheme. However, most other RAF types were in Dark Earth/Dark Green which would align with the reminiscences of the veteran that Mike Starmer knew.
  12. Witness statements are unreliable but often not entirely incorrect. There is photographic evidence showing Vildebeests with camouflage on the upper surfaces and black undersides so, while they may have operated briefly with the silver undersides retained, it seems ultimately they were repainted. However, the recollection of dark brown and dark green uppers does make Paul Lucas' continued advocacy for the Tropical Sea Scheme even more untenable. As to where SH got their camo pattern, that remains a mystery. As noted, there are several inaccuracies so it may be the mis-application of a different camo scheme. There are precious few photos of Far East Vildebeests, so I doubt they accessed anything that hasn't been reviewed by others on this forum. The error in the upper wing roundels suggests at least some of the SH markings scheme is fanciful.
  13. The SH marking instructions contain several inaccuracies so treat them with caution. The question of camo pattern depends on the timeframe you wish to represent. Prior to May 1940 we have a high contrast scheme with black undersides. The upper surface camo, possibly Light Earth and Dark Green, has some pattern irregularities compared to the standard template. Aircraft were seen with and without Type A underwing roundels. The squadron crest was painted on the fin and Type A roundels were on the fuselage side. After May 1940 (as shown in the formation photo), we still have the high contrast scheme but the fin was overpainted with a large flash and a yellow ring was added to the fuselage roundel. Upper wing roundels were Type B (presumably they were also Type B prior to May 1940 but no photographic evidence exists). At some point after May 1940, it seems that many airframes were repainted in a low contrast scheme, probably in Dark Earth/Dark Green with shadow compensation on the lower wings and wheel spats. The aircraft still wore the large fin flash, Type B upper wing roundels and Type A1 fuselage roundels. This scheme is illustrated by the Ceylon airframe. It closely matches the standard pattern. Underside colour is unknown but black would match other bomber types in the theatre, and it would make sense given the night operations flown by the type. As to underwing roundels, there's no proof one way or another. If they existed, they'd be Type A. My suspicion is that they were present given the markings applied to other aircraft in the theatre, plus it would align with the established standard scheme. The final wrinkle are the 2 photos of captured airframes which show light-toned undersides with no underwing roundels. As noted, I suspect that may have been an expedient for the Endau Raid but I have zero proof of that. It's possible the light underside was worn throughout with the period of the low contrast scheme, but that would be odd for an aircraft operating at night. To be honest, there is so little photographic evidence that nobody can say you were definitively wrong, given the pretty broad scope within the above summary.
  14. There were Vildebeests from Singapore operating at Ceylon as a detachment prior to hostilities. There are 2 photos of captured Vildebeests in the NEI which appear to show light-toned undersides but without roundels. It's not clear when the paint was applied. It's possible it was done prior to the Endau raid given that almost all Vildebeest operations prior to that date were flown at night, and so black undersides would be far more sensible.
  15. mhaselden

    Mystery Uniform

    Did a bit more digging and if the man second from left in the photo at Post #18 is who I think it is (Arthur William Wallace), then the date is sometime after 11 Nov 1918 (assuming we are seeing some personnel from 11 Sqn). The chap at far left, Arthur George Simmons, served on 20 Sqn until Apr 1919 and then moved to 84 Sqn. As far as I can tell, neither unit was based close to 11 Sqn so, alas, I'm no further forward in my quest to identify the location.
  • Create New...