PaulR Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Evening all, I'm sure I've read hereabouts that 3Sqn are planning a Typhoon special scheme in the near future. Does anyone know if this going to happen, or just a wish? Am hoping (if it is) it'll be rather more interesting than the last few tornado schemes. I'd like to see squadron flagships with coloured spines/fins rather than anniversary birds that inevitably 'date' very quickly; something like the 111 sqn F3 'O Bandirante 3' . Suppose anything but grey should be considered a good thing . . . FWIW, Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary1701 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Hi Paul, When I posted up a selection of pics from Coningsby in November last year it was mentioned then. One of the aircraft carriying 3 Sqn markings (ZJ916) had had it's code removed and fin markings rather badly mauled around and the local enthusiasts I spoke to up at Coningsby seemed to think that this was the aircraft intended to be done. It's still flying like that I believe, over three months later. It is 3 Sqn's centenary this year though and I find it difficult to believe it will go unrecorded. I also recall it being mentioned by somebody on the 'inside' at Coningsby on another forum and that it was still under planning. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobski Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I suspect the codes / markings coming off is more wear and tear than anything else, as they are only glorified decals. I hope we get to see something, but I'm not sure if or when it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary1701 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Gents, This is the aircraft in question; ZJ916, formely QO-U of 3 Sqn. It's a Op Ellamy veteran with names removed and six LGB marks. These were taken in November, just a few days after it was noticed, and I believe it's still flying in the same condition at the moment. I understand about the decals peeling, and that does seem the obvious answer but I was struck by how likely was it that both sides would go at the same time, as well as the codes (are these decals or paint?). I've never seen any others with anything besides minor damage before so it does seem rather strange, although if it was intentional it does beg the obvious question as to why they didn't finish the job? Just another quick piece of info but the 3 Sqn 56 LGB marked Typhoon (ZJ927/QO-M) has been remarked for 17® Sqn (coded AE), although it retains it's LGB markings. It seems rather odd as they pool these between the units at Coningsby and they're just as likely to fly with another unit as the one they're marked for. They don't very often go to the trouble of changing the decals and coding and I'd have thought 3 Sqn would have wanted to have kept that one in their markings as it has by far the highest number of LGB marks on the fleet. Gary Edited March 11, 2012 by gary1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 2 have just announced their centenary scheme, so I suspect 3 will be not far behind - both Squadrons took off simultaneously the day they were formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkkeeper Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Sqn codes are most likely 'Fascal decals' same as the Royal Navy titles on our FRADU hawks, the 100 year of naval aviation titles were the same too, now removed by myself & 2 of my workmates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Given the current state of the RAF I dont expect very much from any Typhoon Special scheme. If anything lately it seems the military as a whole has lost sight of its history. As this is the centenary of the RFC has anything at all been planned? I suspect that as not 100 years of the RAF this might have something to do with it but then I am a cynical old bugger! Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kstater94 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I have also heard that 3 squadron are supposed to paint a Typhoon in celebration of their 100th anniversary. I agree with Gary that the wear on ZJ916 is not typical of simple peeling but of deliberate removal. I was told that 916 is their hightime airframe so they chose to paint that airframe. Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evalman Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It was supposed to be ready in time for RAF Coningsby Families Day in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobski Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I agree with Gary that the wear on ZJ916 is not typical of simple peeling but of deliberate removal. My only caveat is that if they were deliberately removed then the guys would have removed the whole thing rather than leaving scraps on the airframe. I'm looking forward to seeing the anniversary scheme though if/when it is unveiled. Oh, and Gary, the codes are decals just as the Sqn markings are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kstater94 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 My only caveat is that if they were deliberately removed then the guys would have removed the whole thing rather than leaving scraps on the airframe. I'm looking forward to seeing the anniversary scheme though if/when it is unveiled.Oh, and Gary, the codes are decals just as the Sqn markings are. I agree that it does seem odd that they wouldn't just remove the whole thing at one time. But, then again, there are often times I wonder why the forces do the things that they do... LOL Perhaps someone gets up there (between training flights) and tries to remove what they can before the next flight... who knows... Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary1701 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) Gents, Old thread I realise but the mystery of this aircraft and the possible special scheme has been - at least partially - solved. It's been seen at Coningsby in the last few days remarked back in to standard 3(F) badges and codes and has adopted 'QO-S' rather than it's former 'QO-U' identity. It has retained it's LGB marks and deployed for exercise Frisian Flag at Leeuwarden yesterday - which is where I'll be on Monday/Tuesday camera in hand! Strangely the existing 'QO-S' (ZJ936) has been recoded 'QO-C' but has been stripped of it's 3(F) Sqn markings, which is interesting and keeps alive the rumour of a special scheme this year as there is surely no need to remove the badges for a simple code change. Just to confuse matters even further this in turn replaces the existing 'QO-C' (ZJ922) which has been a hangar queen for several years followed unspecified damage so that aircraft is presumably a write off...everybody with me so far!!! Gary Edited April 14, 2012 by gary1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobski Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Gents,Old thread I realise but the mystery of this aircraft and the possible special scheme has been - at least partially - solved. It's been seen at Coningsby in the last few days remarked back in to standard 3(F) badges and codes and has adopted 'QO-S' rather than it's former 'QO-U' identity. It has retained it's LGB marks and deployed for exercise Frisian Flag at Leeuwarden yesterday - which is where I'll be on Monday/Tuesday camera in hand! Strangely the existing 'QO-S' (ZJ936) has been recoded 'QO-C' but has been stripped of it's 3(F) Sqn markings, which is interesting and keeps alive the rumour of a special scheme this year as there is surely no need to remove the badges for a simple code change. Just to confuse matters even further this in turn replaces the existing 'QO-C' (ZJ922) which has been a hangar queen for several years followed unspecified damage so that aircraft is presumably a write off...everybody with me so far!!! Gary ZJ922 is probably not a write-off but more likely to have been used as a Christmas Tress, sorry, "sustainment jet" while the damage (whatever it is) is repaired in slower time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now