Arcticflyer

Mechanical understanding is what is needed and Karl's pictures confirm this! With the Sutton harness, the Y strap goes inside the seat, not over the back. The base of the Y is fixed to the bottom of the seat either inside (as in pics above) or it passes through the hole to the rear base (Spitfire/Hurricane seat) as these seats were designed with the Sutton harness in mind from the outset. The upper, inverted V straps do go over the back and have a spring restraint on or behind the seat (the circular device). It works by allowing the pilot some fore/aft movement of the shoulders against the spring but no vertical movement (if inverted) because of the Y strap. If you put the Y strap over the seat back, there is no point in the upper spring loaded V strap. This also explains why later 'non sutton' harnesses moved the lower straps forward as the vertical loading was shifted from the shoulders to the thighs. All those instructions showing the Y strap going over the seat are wrong... manufacturers please note!

Hi... fab upgrade! I'm just about finished with my AZ Chipmunk but have fogged the canopy..fool that I am... Does anyone have a spare Airfix or AZ one for sale pleassse... Thanks Paul

Graham, as an abstract I might be tempted to agree with you about an office not guaranteeing access... but... if you could see the whole book it has a mass of information on which mark of Merlin (etc) is used, how many hp, the specific wing loadings and a load of other information that you might expect to be kept secret, and it seems to match other later sources. I think it's quite hard from this distance to understand how blasé we were about some things whilst being very secretive about others. Let's not forget that only a few months before war broke out we were selling 'excess' production' of Hurricanes to any country we thought might be an ally! There is also similar information about key enemy aircraft and some of their more obscure creations too. The fact remains that in autumn 1940 you wouldn't have to stand outside for long, particularly in areas in the south, to see whole squadrons of spitfires and hurricanes, not to mention those that limped home from French excursions only to crash in England. I agree with you about the difference in markings between the AC and AASF and that lack of continuity is part of my point that contrary to clear assertions, the reality was anything but consistent. The four sqns of AC Hurricanes carried quite radically different markings to those 4 sqns of the AASF. I go back to my opening comment that having baled out during the retreat to Dunkirk, a Hurricane pilot was astonished find, having made his way to the British GHQ in France, they didn't even know that the light/dark (b/w!) split was the standard British marking in place for at least a year before. I agree there is evidence that the specified colour was white but remain intrigued by how something so fundamental could be mistated for so long if that is the is the case! Your argument that there was no 'but they were grey' outcry in 1966 also works in reverse and 'but they were white' would surely have come first and not taken from 1941 to 1966 to be challenged on such a basic fact?

Thank you Gingerbob, that's precisely my point. At that point in the war (May 1940) we were losing aircraft at a shocking rate and replacements were gone in hours. Keeping up with localised paint schemes would have been almost impossible.

Thank you Seahawk, now we are getting somewhere. I'm quite prepared to accept that. It still intigues me that both authors specify light grey, even if they are wrong, there must be the beginnings of a reason for doing so that went unchalleged at least until 1966 and through six reprints! ... It makes me laugh that Robertson is described as a general aviation author, his book and AFP is specifically on markings for modellers and pretty damn extensive in its coverage even if it contains a few errors. The AFP vol 1 was put together in Autumn 1940 and does contain names (dark green, light earth etc) where they are known. It's hardly surprising that it refers to a light shade of green or the new duck egg blue as those colours had barely entered use at that point.

Thanks Jerry and It's nice to read other views that may hint toward the answer. Troy, perhaps if your answers were less condescending you might be more convincing! My former partner is a Director of the National Archive in Kew and that may be the next step. You keep saying there's 'a slew of mistakes' but beyond our discussion of the grey/white, but your only other argument is about markings on the undersides at a period of great fluidity. Producing a colour picture of a different plane doesn't alter the fact that yellow can appear white in b/w pictures. Etienne's colour picture is certainly the beginnings of a possible answer being faded dope if there was a transitional period from all dope to the 50% black. Somewhere there is a logical answer to how two authors had this view and simply saying they're wrong is not a convincing argument.

You miss the point, Troy; Graham said that these books were written by people who happened to be on the same planet, my point isn't that they were in France but they were in Leicester in late 1940, not that far from the factories where some of these aircraft were built, and that's a hell of lot closer than we've been! The colours of the shadow shading are stated at the beginning of the book. I'm sure all books have inaccuracies or at best state as fact things we know to be variable, such as the actual colour of Sky! I can produce photos where undersides easily look white but we know they are actually yellow training aircraft.. and if your point that dirty white could be mistaken for grey holds true then surely pale grey could also be seen as an off-white, and when put next to black, sky grey looks pretty pale, and is on the AM chart... but you're still in visual interpretation territory and I'm looking for the AM order ...

Graham, thank you but I fear you are being too dimissive of precisely the research you suggest that I could do! I too have read a great number of narrative accounts that say Black and White, most recently in a transcript from a downed pilot that was astonished to discover that the GHQ of the BEF didn't even know that the B/W paint scheme meant it was a British plane! The trouble with reading my excerpts is that you dont have the whole thing. You've misinterpreted the observation about 501 Sqn and rudder stripes, it doesn't say 501 were an exception, it says exactly as you do, that none of the 'English-based and sent to France daily' sqns had chance to repaint to match those planes of the AAC. And none of what you have presented is evidence! I have given you two sources that are far more contemporary than Michael Bowyer's 1975 book. It's not sensible and actually borders on rude to claim that Aircraft of the Fighting Powers was written "by someone on the same planet".. it is published in Leicester on 1st Jan 1941 with the BoB only just finished and the Blitz still raging! (and Michael Bowyer is just a child). The authors' experience of the war is a damn sight closer than ours will ever be and the only research needed was to step outside and look! Beneath is the link to the introduction to my other source, that too is not some kiddies book but a serious publication, 20yrs closer to the war and well researched too. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aIBw-urj20_anMoCsK-CfLtSeVda6f-F/view?usp=drivesdk The point is that here are two sources, one from only six months after the period in question, that both independently say the same thing... am I to believe that despite getting all their other facts and figures right, they have both got this totally wrong and just made it up? I don't think so. So I go back to my original request.. does anyone have an actual copy of the original Air Ministry instruction?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HV2B3sJ9jtKwXxUyilb1QPAKPoqg4A3C/view?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e1W-EjvWKf6YPdymcWxDBOyE2qZg4ySi/view?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1stXPMYFtq2ukWbLCmamfaTmzpqqzn0OO/view?usp=drivesdk

Thanks guys but the trouble is I have more references in my other book and both books are contemporary, one written in 1941 and one the 1966 reprint of a 1954 book... these are written by people who were there, not interpretations of photos ! I agree the colour is very pale , but is it white, or actually very pale grey! Hence asking for the actual AM directive.... there are a number of links to follow... ( does anyone know how to get these to show as pictures rather than links?) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1keW9_t7hSABfIVKOSsA6tZ8L0xv0qbgH/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fChrtmyFUNgDbDOX23RPqcLY_TIwmNHh/view?usp=drivesdk

I agree with all of this except for the specification of 'white', does anyone have access to Air Min documents saying 'white' please? Btw I'm trying to post the actual pictures, please bear with me...

Oops, please try now, let me know if still not working...thanks

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MIZ0bJ5A11A_mcydHFZkTIFSILKk9IBl/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O4gmMXute4R5T2cl7AtRKHPs1r6zXim7/view?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eAkBQtJs0177lLhKGmn29OR1o0NNhfjr/view?usp=drivesdk