Tiger Moth 18ERFTS, Fairoaks 1937 Colour Scheme

[Wez]

I've just got Xtradecal Sheet X72190 for the Tiger Moth which I plan to use with the forthcoming Airfix kit when it arrives.

One of the schemes on the sheet is for K4288 used by 18 E&RFTS at Fairoaks in 1937, the same aircraft is featured on page 29 of the AIRfile RAF Trainers Vol.1 1918-1945 however the two schemes differ.

Xtradecal have this aircraft coded 'D', in the AIRfile it has no code letter.

Both sources depict the aircraft with a silver fuselage and yellow under-surfaces to the wings with camouflaged upper-surfaces.

Xtracolour depict the outboard halves of each wing upper-surface and the elevators as yellow, the AIRfile shows these as camouflage without the yellow.

Either scheme is attractive but does anyone have any idea which is correct?

Your help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Wez

[John Aero]

K4288 of 18 ERFTS was Silver overall prewar and carried a number 3 on the top decking behind the rear seat. Now the Airlife book shows it with a stringered fuselage making it an 82 but the prewar photo in the McKay Tiger Moth shows it is an 82a and another photo in SAM Vol 15 No11 mis-identifies it as an 82..

John

[Wez]

Thanks for the reply John, although I don't have many references for the Tiggie, your response reminded me that I do have SAM 15/11 which I've since dug out and had a look at the photo of the aircraft. You're right they go to great lengths to describe the aircraft as a DH.82 but I can't see any stringers.

I can see something in black on the rear decking aft of the blind flying hood, I couldn't say whether that was a number 3 and to be honest, I wouldn't have looked for it if you hadn't mentioned it. I can see a full camouflaged (e.g. no outer yellow panel) upper surface to the port-upper wing and the starboard lower wing upper surface looks too dark to be silver dope even in shadow so I'm guessing that's camouflaged too. There's no code letter D either.

The Xtradecal instructions state that the cowling should be polished metal but it looks too dull in the photo in SAM - more like silver dope to my eyes.

I've just Googled the aircraft in question and there's a picture of the same aircraft from a slightly different aspect and it appears silver overall - here's the link http://www.aviationbanter.com/attachment.php?s=dff7619751558407d2aeefb2e76d65bb&attachmentid=58921&d=1346476908 - the number 3 on the decking is more obvious!

It would appear that neither the AIRfile or the Xtradecal are correct - I'm thoroughly confused now!

I would like to see a picture of this aircraft which clearly shows the position and style of the number 3 on the decking.

Wez

[John Aero]

The picture in the McKay book shows it with a greater degree of bank, clearly displaying the no 3 and the all silver colour. K4288 was built as a DH 82a to contract 307396/34. So where are the pictures of it in semi camouflage because they aren't in SAM Vol 15/11 as quoted?

John

[Wez]

The picture in the McKay book shows it with a greater degree of bank, clearly displaying the no 3 and the all silver colour. K4288 was built as a DH 82a to contract 307396/34. So where are the pictures of it in semi camouflage because they aren't in SAM Vol 15/11 as quoted?

John

John,

I think the photo in the link and that in SAM 15/11 were taken during the same session, the one in the link is from a subtly different aspect and the aircraft is definitely silver but it's a much bigger, clearer and better reproduced picture than that in SAM and therefore easier to interpret, if that's the case, my interpretation of the picture in SAM is plainly wrong - not surprising and merely serves to highlight the perils and pitfalls of trying to interpret B&W photo's!

It is evident that I've made the same mistake as the illustrators in the AIRfile book and the Xtrdecals or did I see what I wanted to see?

I think it's back to the drawing board for me then which is a shame because if it had been a combination of silver/camouflage/yellow it would have been a very attractive subject.

Thanks for answering my query in the first place.

Wez

Edited January 12, 2014 by Wez

[John Aero]

I was puzzled by this scheme in the first place because it goes against all the norms. I think all these in flight photos were taken in the same session and are DH archive. The letter three is flat topped and I estimate about 18" high. I doubt that it would have been painted piecemeal and it would be easier to remove the wing cellules. For the record biplanes are normally erected by fitting the top wing first, supporting it, then the struts and then hanging the lower wing before the main bracing. On the McKay book photo the wings have a number of square fabric patches which stand out and I'm wondering if at shallow angles this mismatch appears like camouflage.

John

[Wez]

I was puzzled by this scheme in the first place because it goes against all the norms. I think all these in flight photos were taken in the same session and are DH archive. The letter three is flat topped and I estimate about 18" high. I doubt that it would have been painted piecemeal and it would be easier to remove the wing cellules. For the record biplanes are normally erected by fitting the top wing first, supporting it, then the struts and then hanging the lower wing before the main bracing.

John

Thanks for the gen John, I must say I'd expected bi-planes to have been erected the other way around but then, I've never been involved in the job!

Wez