Jump to content

Oil stains on Spitfires!


tank152

Recommended Posts

I would like to point out that every photo so far supplied as evidence in this thread is whilst flying. This obviously cannot be used as evidence that: A) "Spitfires were commonly very dirty while on the ground", or B) "they weren't, because the oil/dirt accumulated during flight was all wiped off by diligent, faithful erks".

bob

Edited by gingerbob
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't doubt the erks did their best when the circumstances favoured it. Particularly at an established airfield with hangars and all that. But in wartime in blacked out dispersals at forward airstrips it's a different story. Besides the photos tell the story.

They also had access to those funny-looking things called tents.

considering the visual evidence anecdotes about handkerchiefs seem a little tall in the telling

.

Sad, really, isn't it? All of those shows I attended, and ex-erks with whom I worked, and who shared their experiences with me (like the ex-609 rigger, who said that, even during the Battle of Britain, they would always slap some paint [of whatever colour] on a repair, or the Lancaster rear-gunner, credited with 34 "trips," who only did 33,) and I never once thought to accuse them of lying. Well, I live and learn, so I might as well let others do the research, since mine is obviously based on fabrications, and a complete waste of time.

Edited by Edgar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are not many among us who could say they gathered some information from people who witnessed those days. In my opinion it is always better to encourage those guys to share then the opposite way round. When it comes to model building everyone can take from them whatever he finds worthy, or throw away everything. No problem there, but the stories are priceless just for being there. For me they surely are.

It is possible to find a proof for disobeying any of aircraft maintenance rules. There is a lot of pics showing such situations. But they show nothing but these situations only. Of course there where heavily weathered, dirty Spitfires. Of course they were cleaned. Well, even I wash my car once in a while. Imagine being a person obliged to work with an aircraft every day. Wouldn't you rather clean the surface, or put your fingers in still growing layer of greasy, dirty mud? Even without staff chief over you.

And let's not forget all those stories where caring about the aircraft went far over the regulations and orders. Mr Safford and Shacki needed some three months to find polishing and waxing job on Gabreski's Razorback completed. What's wiping some oil compared to this :),

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying they were lying Edgar or even exaggerating very much. But my own personal experience of trying to clean gunk off the bottom of an aircraft in less than ideal conditions, ie cold day, muddy field without even a tent suggests to me that in wartime conditions particularly at austere airfields, cosmetic considerations would be low down the list of priorities. Getting it ready for operations has to be a priority. Which isn't to say it was never done. Exhaust staining being another example of practical considerations trumping cosmetics.

But like any weathering, it is legitimate to keep it light and appropriate even if in some wartime photos the aircraft looks like it's been vandalised!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apocryphal = "of doubtful authority, spurious" according to my dictionary = untrue, as far as I'm concerned.

If you get the chance to read the dozens of papers, from and to the Air Ministry, regarding their desire for as smooth a finish as possible, take it, because you might get some idea of their (almost) obsession with the condition of aircraft.

From around 1941, there was a new trade, Aircraft Finisher, introduced into the RAF, and his job was to keep the aircraft in pristine condition, and ready for action. Training was carried out by I.C.I., and an Air Publication, A.P.3156, comprising 100+ pages, was specially printed for their guidance, so please don't say that it was given low priority.

Edgar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been a rigger in the RAF, I can tell you unequivocally that, regardless of the weather, or the light,or the prospect of getting covered in crap, the oil would have been wiped away.

There are many reasons for doing so, with pride in one's aircraft being near the top of the list. It also makes it much easier to identify abnormal leaks of the type that may prevent your aircraft and its pilot getting home.

On Scottish Aviation Bulldogs, the Avco-Lycoming IO-360 leaked oil at a much lower rate than that of the Merlin and the Bulldog was wiped down weekly and prior to any visit by a senior officer and we'd never have waited for the Flight Sergeant to mention it, either. This was done with neat aircraft cleaning compound, even though such use was unauthorised, as it was supposed to be mixed one part to ten of water for hand application, or with white spirit, or most commonly, PX-24, (a type of temporary protective compound similar to WD-40). I still get skin trouble to this day.

On a Merlin powered aircraft, I would think it likely that even the insides of the cowlings would be wiped down every time they were removed, which is something still done today even on clean machines with blow-torch backsides.

This is basic engineering practice and became ingrained habit, kind of like closing your fly, or eating.

Edited by Kit builder
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first comment that has to be made is that peacetime practice is always likely to be more "proper" than wartime.

The second is that the Air Ministry would not have needed to be quite so repetitive and insistent if such excellent practice as Kit Builder describes had been universal. The photographs above show a wide range of staining: it's difficult to accept that this would have been just the views at different stages of the same flight. The Merlin did pump out well over a gallon of oil each hour, judging from the increase in capacity required by the longer-range PR flights (or indeed the ferry to Malta described in another thread very recently). This had to go somewhere, but not all was retained on the aircraft's underside. Other photographs show exhaust staining and staining around the gun muzzles and the cartridge ejector holes. There would be the same pressure to clean these as the underside oil, yet they are seen. Much less commonly around the leading edge, as indeed is right and proper, yet examples do exist.

The last point is a matter of available time. At the peaks of the Battle of Britain, or for shorter actions such as Dieppe or Mortain, fighters would be flying several missions each day. There would not be time in between each sortie to clean the underside. Any such cleaning would be done overnight, or when the aircraft was unserviceable. In less hectic times, then perhaps it was done after every flight, at least on the fighter squadrons. That this was consistently done on the heavy bomber units takes some believing, viewing the photos.

What this means for the modeller is that he is as justified in modelling a dirty aircraft,or at least one to match those in the photos, as he is to model a clean one. The same machine could be both at different times. But the Wingco's personal machine would be clean...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has been said before, but maybe it's worth repeating: keeping things clean has nothing to do with aestethics, it's down to the proper maintenance required to keep the thing working as it should.

Ground crews in wartime had the responsibility of keeping the aircrafts in the condition required for these to perform their missions at their best. Part of this meant keeping things clean for a good number of reasons:

- an aircraft with accumulation of dirt is less efficient from an aerodynamic point of view. This is particularly true for certain areas more than others and the leading edge and top of the wing are the most important. The same dirt is less of a problem on the wing bottom parts and the rear fuselage

- dirt areas can prevent the identification of leaks from the engine cooling circuit, lubricants, hydraulic circuits

- residues can affect the reliability of certain components

- some residues (oil for example) can reduce the durability of certain components

Any of the above can lead to the failure from an aircraft to perform its mission and in the worst case can lead to the loss of an aircraft and its pilot(s).

Of course this does not mean that everything had to be pristine, nobody cared if the paint bleached or if some surfaces got darker through continuous exposure to oil.. as long as these did not have negative effects on the reliability and the performance of the machines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nobody cared if the paint bleached or if some surfaces got darker through continuous exposure to oil..

Somebody did (original documents courtesy of Edgar)! :winkgrin:

atheringofTemperateSeaScheme_1-vi.jpg

atheringofTemperateSeaScheme_2-vi.jpg

In the services you tend to find tight establishments and slack establishments and establishments at various stages in between, and tight establishments that are sometimes slack for a multitude of reasons and slack establishments that are sometimes tight for a multitude of reasons, and oic's who care a lot, or a little, or not much or not all. And sometimes there is time and motive and sometimes there isn't. It's a multi-faceted thing that snapshot photographs cannot really evidence beyond one facet at that particular point in time. Trying to pin down the typicality of oil stains on a Spitfire is a little like trying to pin down the typicality of dirt on a BMW or perhaps knitting fog.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great documents Nick ! Even if they contradict my statement (that I admit was thrown in without much thought), they reinforce the rest of my post: the efficiency of the aircraft as a war machine was the main reason for cleaning and a lot of other activities. If a worn paint reduces the effect of camouflage, it detracts from the capability of the aircraft to succesfully complete its mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Merlin did pump out well over a gallon of oil each hour, judging from the increase in capacity required by the longer-range PR flights (or indeed the ferry to Malta described in another thread very recently). This had to go somewhere, but not all was retained on the aircraft's underside.

I imagine a fair proportion of consumption was "internal"- finding its way into the combustion chambers and being combusticated, though perhaps this contributed to exhaust staining. Perhaps we should investigate the relationship between rate of oil consumption and appearance of exhaust staining!

All that black oil on the belly would compromise the camouflage, too.

bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wondered about internal consumption/combustion before posting but what are piston rings for? Once oil gets into the combustion chamber then white smoke would start coming out of the exhausts, and an engine fitter would be in for a late evening. The exhaust stains are predominantly unburned carbon from incomplete combustion (if black) or excess lead from long running at lean setting (if lighter grey). The latter are particularly obvious on the RAAF Mk.VIIIs later in the war, but then the Mk.VIIIs did have that extra fuel anyway.

A lot of the oil would initially spread itself around the engine bay, but most of that would drip out with time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even a light film of even clean oil will very quickly attract dust and debris to the undersides of aircraft, especially if operating from grass.(Harriers!) Heavy operational requirements with minimum maintenance backup will soon make an aeroplane very scruffy, but come the calm then the bullshit fairy appears (usually with a crown on his arm). Then all returns to sweetness and light.

I think the Spit XII would have been an especially hard worked aeroplane given there were only two squadrons at a busy period of tip and run activity.

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've resisted the urge to post on this thread but finally got fed up when I read people telling us what should and shouldn't be done in aircraft maintenance, the first question is "How do you know, have you actually done any?"

Apologies to anyone I've missed but the only people in this thread that I know for sure have worked in aircraft maintenance are Kit Builder, John Aero and now myself (I've been in aircraft maintenance for 30 years) and we're all telling you that aircraft leak and not all of those leaks get completely cleaned off thoroughly post every single sortie, if the operational tempo is high it just doesn't happen there's often only enough time in-between sorties to carry out a flight servicing (e.g. making sure everything is there and not hanging off cleaning the transparencies and that the oil and coolant levels are at the right levels), re-arming and sticking enough fuel in for the next sortie). You do what you need to do and if there's time you do what you can!

Chiefy doesn't linger on the flight line or at each dispersal making sure making sure that the Erks are doing everything according to regulations or what certain officers would want, he doesn't have time, he's looking after a number of aircraft and besides it may be cold, wet and miserable out there so he has NCO's to do that for him, NCO's who're running around making sure the Erks have got what they need to do their job and check the F700 etc... ...so some things get left.

If there was an oil leak around a vent, or somebody had spilt a bit doing a top-up you'd give it a wipe as you went round but only to see if it was still leaking or getting worse, eventually it would build up into a reasonable amount and you'd have to do something about it but in those days there were no specialist wash pans, you did it on the dispersal, with soapy cold water - guess what? That stuff's none too good at cleaning up dried hydraulic oil so you'd (in those days), use a petrol soaked rag, it would clean up most of the gunk and spread some more around staining the finish.

If the aircraft lasted long enough to go in for deeper maintenance it was more likely to get cleaned, likewise, aircraft housed in hangars rather than cold, wet dispersals are more likely to get cleaned.

Aircraft that were only flying one sortie a day are more likely to get cleaned than those that are flying three, four or five times a day. An aircraft that landed from a night sortie in the early hours of the morning and wasn't going flying until later the following evening is more likely to be cleaner than one that's just landed and has to be ready within the hour to go off again. Periods when the weather was bad enough to prevent flying, and all the aircraft were serviceable would be a good time to clean aircraft (good old Liney Sunshine or Fog as most people call it) is usually when this happens to keep the Erks busy (to prevent the Devil making work for idle hands).

Regarding the Painter and Finisher Trade (Dopers as we called them), we didn't have them on any of the Sqns I worked on, there were probably no more than a dozen to cover off all our painting needs between three busy Squadrons on my last unit, they would come and refinish when required, they wouldn't be there poised with a brush, roller, bit of sponge or rag to dab a spot of paint on every time the surface finish got chipped, one of the Erks may have done that but only if there was time for it to dry - you tend to find that aircrew dislike getting paint on them. Whilst the Air Ministry may have been concerned enough to establish a trade and publish some regulations, I can guarantee that on a day to day basis those regulations were given a sound ignoring!

So whilst there were people who had the time to polish their charges wings so their pilot could slide a handkerchief off of it (shades of pull up a sandbag there...), there were many who didn't, they did the best they could with the resources and time available, they weren't slack and neither was their unit, they were busy and things got left because they weren't considered as vital as making sure the engine didn't seize for lack of oil, the engine didn't overheat for lack of coolant, there was sufficient fuel and ammunition for the sortie, the canopy was clean, the radios worked etc, etc... ...ask the aircrews what they'd prefer.

Operational aircraft get dirty, some get dirtier than others, some get really dirty, Spitfires are no different, accept it, live with it and move on.

Wez

Edited by Wez
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are on this subject could someone also please confirm how long is a piece of string?

Completely off topic but for all those members seemingly perplexed by the dimensional proportions of a piece of string, those helpful people at the BBC's Horizon have produced this documentary that explains everything... or not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvjGz6gY1N0

Hope that helps.

Dan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who would have thought a topic as esoteric as this could get controversial. Wez nails it really. But in truth everyone is a bit right. Aeroplanes do chuck oil out of the crankcase breather and smears itself all over the belly of the aircraft. The photos show this and personal experience confirms it for me. But of course this was cleaned off when possible and practical.

So no controversy really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies to anyone I've missed but the only people in this thread that I know for sure have worked in aircraft maintenance are Kit Builder, John Aero and now myself...

Well, aside from the rather aggressive tone, I think what you say is pretty reasonable. You can add me to the list, but if you saw how much actual "aircraft maintenance" I've done you'd still sneer. But then, I haven't (that I'm aware of) handed out any pronouncements toward one opinion or another, either.

bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Weathered Spitfire

Not Just Oil Stains!

Discussions regarding the appearance of the paint finish and weathering of operational military aircraft, has unsurprisingly gone on for longer than I have been alive and no doubt will probably continue long after I am gone. This discussion is of particular interest to those aviation artists and aviation modellers, who seek to render their subjects faithfully.

Of course one should be mindful that the appearance of a completed artwork or scale model in terms of simulated weathering is usually only as good or as bad as the renderers skills allow them to accomplish. In other words although an artist/illustrator or modeller may intend to faithfully render their subject their skills and or reference resources may not be up to the task. So although a model or artwork may appear over weathered or otherwise we should not forget that the maker of the depiction has at least done their very best work in making that representation faithful to the prototype.

It is sometimes argued that depicting operational in-service Spitfire aircraft during the Second World War through scale model replicas or artwork as being dirty (with oil and carbon deposits from both exhaust & guns, mud and bugs etc.) is not faithful to the subject or typical of their appearance as these aircraft were maintained in clean and pristine condition.

Without doubt operational in service Spitfire aircraft during the Second World War were in large part thoroughly and professionally maintained in order to obtain optimal performance from the type. This maintenance included inspections, modifications, repairs and unsurprisingly cleaning as well because such efforts were necessary and did matter.

It is worth noting however, that the contemporary photographic record provides considerable evidence that Spitfire aircraft although well maintained certainly were not always clean and pristine. In fact the extant contemporary photographic record shows clean and pristine Spitfires significantly less often than dirty ones in any theatre of operation regardless of the user.

What often isn’t considered, when it is suggested that Spitfires models should be depicted as clean and pristine, is that a live, in-service Spitfire will get significantly dirty very quickly simply by being used.

10069944965_ce3198783a_o.jpg

We could look at almost all extant photographs of Spitfire aircraft as operated from Italy, Yugoslavia or anywhere else other than England like the one shown above for example and see dirty and not pristine Spitfires in operation. To do so however, would probably see argument that those Spitfires in terms of their dirty appearance are not representative of Spitfires as operated from England.

So with that being the case lets examine some visual evidence from England in the guise of a Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire Mk IX aircraft as photographed at Hornchurch, Essex during December of 1942. This aircraft has been chosen because, first it looked dirty, second it was relatively new and third (at least according to the squadron Operations Record Book) it had flown very few operational sorties when photographed in this instance.

Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire FIX BS546

11229141584_330575da01_o.jpg

The Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire FIX BS546 “O Guarany” as shown above was a Presentation Aircraft from the Fellowship of the Bellows of Brazil that was first flown during 24 October 1942. BS546 was then subsequently delivered to 122 (Bombay) Squadron (Sqn) of the Royal Air Force (RAF) during 27 October 1942 where it received the codes ‘MT-J’. BS546 remained with 122 Squadron throughout its service career until its loss over Cassel, France during 28 February 1943, 127 days after its first flight.

During 29 December 1942, sixty-six days after BS546’s first flight, Flying Officer (F/O) J. Trievnor, RAF Official Photographer photographed this aircraft with Pilot Officer (P/O) Godefroy J. M. Le Gal, Croix de Guerre, at Hornchurch, Essex. BS546 at that time had only flown four operational sorties totalling just over six hours and exhibits the typical appearance on any given day of a Spitfire Mk IX as used by an operational fighter squadron.

11229130865_b7d15c8ae3_o.jpg

In this instance that typical appearance reveals a well-maintained airframe that features a couple of hours worth of exhaust staining plus some oil streaking as well as a touch of some mud.

BS546 On The Record

The following is drawn from the Operations Record Book (ORB) of 112 Sqn, RAF, and lists all entries that mention BS546 up to the time it was photographed by F/O J. Trievnor during 29 December 1942.

BS546 November 1942

1 November; Fairlop, BS546, Sgt G S Hulse*, Standing Patrol, 12:25 to 13:45.

6 November; Fairlop, BS546, Sgt G S Hulse*, Fighter Sweep, 13:50 to 15:30.

“At 13.50 the squadron was A/B on Ramrod 22, and made R/V at Beachy Head, with the supporting wings. From there course was set for Hardelot, thence to Bere at 28,000’ and from there, the squadron headed for home. All A/C landing safely at base by 15,20 [sic].” 1

BS546 December 1942

1 December; Fairlop, BS546, P/O T L Parker**, Convoy Patrol, 08:20 to 09:45.

“Dull day 10/10 low cloud. There was no flying. Synthetic training was carried out.” 1

20 December; Hornchurch, BS546, F/Lt K B L Debenham***, Fighter Sweep, 11:00 to 12:40. 2

“The squadron were [sic] A/B at 11.00hrs. on Circus 244. R/V at Beachy Head with 30 mixed B17’s and B24’s and 2 Northolt IX squadrons at 25,000’. In over St.Valery-en-Caux. Bombers appeared to be far W. of planned course so squadron left them at Duclaire and making a climbing orbit to 32,000’ came over Dieppe. Six A/C returned owing to reasons varying from supercharger to tank trouble. The remainder landed at Manston at 12.40”

29 December; 3

“Cold and moderately clear. Squadron flying practice in line abreast formation in the morning. Firing practice in the afternoon. F/Lt.Debenham posted overseas. F/O.W.A.Prest promoted F/LT. on appointment as Flight Commander of “B” Flight.”

A Warbird Spitfire Before and After

9781314203_68a0301afc_o.jpg

Some observations of a sometimes dirty and sometimes pristine yet always meticulously maintained Merlin 266 powered warbird Spitfire.

The Temora Aviation Museum which is located in Temora, New South Wales, Australia operates two Merlin 266 powered Spitfire aircraft one is a Spitfire LFXVI; TB863, VH-XVI while the other is a Spitfire HFVIII; MV239, A58-758, VH-HET which as manufactured used a Merlin 70 to provide motive power. I have been in the fortunate position to observe and document these aircraft closely.

From the end of 2011 through to December 2012 the Spitfire VIII, VH-HET was not flown, due to the fact that the Merlin engine it used wasn’t playing as nicely as expected. In order to fix this the engine went through a slow and comprehensive rebuild in the United States. This rebuild afforded the opportunity to also restore this aircraft from the firewall forward to more closely match an in service operational aircraft (excepting the installation of an additional oil filter and an oil-heating pad).

Post restoration the decision was made by the Temora Aviation Museum to run VH-HET with a wartime mixture from its first post restoration flight. This decision afforded the opportunity to record varying states of exhaust staining through a period of close to a year. One thing that unsurprisingly became quickly apparent throughout this period was that the amount of exhaust staining build-up was consistent throughout all stages in terms of time operated versus quantity of deposit each time the airframe was pristinely cleaned. By the way the only way to remove that exhaust staining successfully is through the use of petrol, plus it is also worth mentioning that when one stands on the wing of a working Spitfire and leans against the fuselage the exhaust crap sticks to ones clothes, I know this because it has happened to me often.

9781273646_c36e553942_o.jpg

18 October 2011. When VH-HET was run using a mixture intended to keep the airframe cleaner.

11231726204_7dd7ef42dd_o.jpg

19 August 2011, pre firewall forward restoration work.

11229174166_fce3568b11_o.jpg

3 August 2012, during firewall forward restoration work.

9781243775_ce4b9ecb85_o.jpg

20 September 2012, during firewall forward restoration work.

9781246264_9aab1eff12_o.jpg

16 February 2013. Wartime mixture, approximately 5min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9781061752_362c8d70ef_o.jpg

16 February 2013. Wartime mixture, approximately 30min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9781261086_87b0f09757_o.jpg

1 December 2012. Wartime mixture, approximately 1hr 15min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9781064462_f41812933d_o.jpg

2 February 2013. Wartime mixture, approximately 4hrs 20min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9967511016_4119b370a3_o.jpg

3 March 2013. Wartime mixture, approximately 8hrs+ running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

10069978836_08d4827df0_o.jpg

6 April. Exhaust staining very quickly covers the fuselage and even the rudder.

10069975076_d6e2662e78_o.jpg

6 April. More exhaust staining, bug smash can also be seen on the elevator.

Exhaust Illumination

It is worth noting that lighting also plays a significant role in the appearance of exhaust stains, as the following pictures will demonstrate.

9781259106_2b0a17ef81_o.jpg

1 December 2012. Diffuse indirect light on wartime mixture, exhaust staining following approximately 1hr 15min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9967532466_47e1d5f94e_o.jpg

19 December 2012. Indirect light on wartime mixture, exhaust staining following approximately 2hr 10min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9967490694_b8ea95c500_o.jpg

19 December 2012. Direct light on wartime mixture, exhaust staining following approximately 2hr 30min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9967586523_1557f13a42_o.jpg

2 February 2013. Indirect light on wartime mixture exhaust staining following approximately 4hrs 15min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9967447315_8b9ae64096_o.jpg

2 February 2013. Direct light on wartime mixture exhaust staining following approximately 4hrs 20min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9967479134_f2a231cbdb_o.jpg

2 February 2013. Direct light on wartime mixture exhaust staining following approximately 4hrs 20min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

9967516786_fcd76342eb_o.jpg

2 February 2013. Indirect light on wartime mixture exhaust staining following approximately 4hrs 30min running/flying time from when airframe was clean.

As can be seen, the appearance of the exhaust changes significantly depending upon the direction of the illumination. When more directly lit the exhaust stains appear as a light grey or brown. While alternatively when more indirectly lit the exhaust stains appear as a dark brown.

Oil Stains

10069943115_832047056d_o.jpg

2 December 2012. Approximately two hours worth of oil leaks are evident upon the underside.

Etcetera

2 December 2012 follows;

9967536926_280fe25079_o.jpg

2 February 2013 follows;

9968384634_96a591ab85_o.jpg

6 April 2013 follows;

9781243914_489d02cc3b_o.jpg

9509351022_6f21a72ebc_o.jpg

9781250616_9dbd4d8dd0_o.jpg

9967503366_d808c42697_o.jpg

9967498116_24a5c9e278_o.jpg

17 August 2013 follows;

9967457354_7bf6bd6f2e_o.jpg

7 September 2013 follows;

9967910223_c8c082775b_o.jpg

Closing

11230115094_4674b7ae04_o.jpg

11230129006_b429d25955_o.jpg

11230207073_78e4aa5b4b_o.jpg

In closing it should never be considered unreasonable or inappropriate to make a scale replica of an operational Spitfire or artwork of the same that depicts it as being dirty and less than pristine. Since it only takes a short time period for a Spitfire to become rather dirty. Working aircraft also leak stuff even when not running, that’s why one will find drip trays beneath an aircraft inside a hangar, homemade cans that catch the crap that dribbles from an aircrafts wheels are also sometimes used.

The difference between cleanliness and the appearance of plenty of filth in the guise of exhaust and oil staining is just one sortie flown. So that being the case, even if a Spitfire was comprehensively cleaned once daily it would still appear as a dirty aircraft for a fair part of any day it was flown. When the tempo of operations sometimes required that more sorties than one were flown on any given day that same Spitfire would remain filthier for longer.

Therefore on balance if one decides to depict their Spitfire as being a bit unclean they would certainly be representing their subject rather faithfully.

Qualification

Although I have considerably less experience than some with operating aircraft, not to mention I wasn’t there in the 1940’s, I have on countless occasions been in and out of a variety of operational military (Navy, Army and Air Force) fixed wing and rotary aircraft during my youth. I have also been afforded many opportunities to closely examine surviving Second World War airframes both restored and otherwise. I am not an aircraft engineer and I have also never flown a plane, I have however enjoyed throwing myself out of them “check canopy, end cells open”.

I do examine primary source contemporary documents, I have and do interview service veterans who were there, I have and do examine high-resolution images, negatives and prints. I have and do examine extant artefacts.

I also have some understanding of military service culture and behaviour including the telling of tall tales and true or to put it another way the display of extraordinary candour and or pi#$ taking. This understanding is drawn from my experience in the Australian Army as a Non-Commissioned Officer in both Infantry (Section 2IC, Section Commander and Platoon Sergeant) and later Intelligence Corps’ (Detachment Commander) service (I have also played Mess Rugby4). I also come from a largely uniformed family culture that spans genders plus the Officer and Other Ranks divide across many generations, which includes Navy, Army, Air Force, Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance service.

For the last two years I have also been fortunate to have had and continue to have considerable intimate and regular access to a range of operating warbird aircraft (including two Spitfires). This access has included either going up in, standing upon, helping to move, conducting talks about, providing visitor access to, and or photographing them comprehensively when static or moving.

Although one may not agree with my conclusions, at the very least my conclusions are drawn from sound study, experience and considerable access to some working Spitfires.

Cheers,

Daniel.

Notes

1 Contradiction does sometimes occur between and or within the following documents; Operations Record Book, Combat Report, Flying Log Book and or Diaries.

2 It is not known if BS546 was amongst the six Spitfire aircraft that returned early from the Fighter Sweep (Circus 244) that was flown during 20 December. As noted in the 122 Squadron Operations Record Book as follows. “Six A/C returned owing to reasons varying from supercharger to tank trouble. The remainder landed at Manston at 12.40”

3 Although BS546 is not specifically mentioned in the 122 Sqn ORB when photographed during 29 December 1942. An entry from the ORB for the day was included since it is highly likely that BS546 flew that day during flying and firing practice.

4 Mess Rugby in my experience is played in a confined space such as a boozer (drinking establishment), with the ball being a frozen chook, it is also important that all furniture and glasses etc should remain in place upon the playing field. It is also important that all of the players are somewhat inebriated as well, it is not uncommon to occasionally see a player create a hole in a wall through the unplanned application of their head.

*Squadron Leader, Graham Stanaway HULSE, 52935, Royal Air Force, missing, 13 March 1953, 336th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, United States Air Force.

**Flying Officer, Thomas Lawrence, PARKER, 115431, Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, killed, 6 December 1942,122 Squadron, Royal Air Force.

***Squadron Leader, Kenneth Barry Lempriere DEBENHAM, 81656, Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, killed, 16 December 1943,126 Squadron, Royal Air Force.

Pictures of BS546 can be found as part of the collection of the Imperial War Museum and are catalogued respectively as CH 8162, CH 8163 and CH 8164.

All colour pictures in this post are Copyright ©2011-2013 Daniel Cox.

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't add much to Daniel's excellent response above, except to add that even the aircraft role plays a part in the staining, too.

My dad's experience with 253 Sqn on Spitfire ops in 44/45 was often on very long-range (for a Spit) operations to dive-bomb targets in Yugoslavia and elswhere in the Balkans. Flying for range meant not only was the aircraft carrying 30, later 45 gal (occasionally 90) tanks, but the formation flew out relatively slowly at low power to get the fuel consumption required. This meant that the cylinders fouled quite quickly and every 15 min or so, they would open up - on a hand signal from the leader - and a dense cloud of soot would emerge for a few seconds, when the power would be reduced again. It's pretty likely that at the end of a sortie like that, the results were as seen in Daniel's first photo, of Spits used in that way.

There's also a difference between cleaning and wiping - especially with WWII paint finishes versus modern glossy acrylics. My dad has always maintained that the aircraft were kept clean, even polished, to maintain performance, but even his own photos show the aircraft with visible stains. These are not inconsistent, especially as most of the performance drag "hit" comes from contamination where the boundary layer is thinnest - i.e. leading edges rather than halfway back along the fuselage.

As an aside, the Chipmunk I used to fly was always wiped down to remove visible oil after every aerobatic flight (nothing loses more quarts/hp than the DH Gipsy Major) but there's always a film of oil left, even on the gloss paint. If operated off a grassy, dry airfield, we always picked up dirt on the underside, courtesy of the oil film.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, aside from the rather aggressive tone, I think what you say is pretty reasonable. You can add me to the list, but if you saw how much actual "aircraft maintenance" I've done you'd still sneer. But then, I haven't (that I'm aware of) handed out any pronouncements toward one opinion or another, either.

bob

Bob,

Apologies if my post came across as being aggressive, it wasn't my intention to sneer or belittle however, in my defence, the post was made at the end of a long and extremely fractious day which probably made me more crotchety which was obviously reflected in my post.

I would not sneer at the amount of maintenance you've done, you've been there, done it and got the t-shirt.

Daniel Cox,

Thank you for a superbly illustrated and well argued post. Your pictures are by the way fantastic.

Twice half its length.

Simples

Danni,

Spot on as always.

Wez

Edited by Wez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...