Basilisk Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) This picture was published in the September issue of FlyPast, showing the whole wavy leading edge camo. But is it really camo? I would think that the aircraft was delivered with the normal painted leading edge an that the change happened on unit level. But why. On the picture it looks like it was added later. Does anyone have a clue how this came about? Cheers, Peter Edited October 13, 2015 by Basilisk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsprop Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Any idea of the s/n? IIRC some aircraft operating in the MTO had wavy leading edges (Hurricane?). Possibly testing new camo? Ben 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisk Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 Yep, the one in the title. Sorry, I was a bit in a rush last night. It is BoB veteran X4382 LO-G from No 602 Squadron and the picture was taken at Westhampnett in late 1940 as there are no leaves on the trees. According to Spitfire Mark I/II Aces, this aircraft was flown by 11 kill ace Pilot Officer Hanbury, using it to destroy a Bf 110 near Beachy Head on 15 September 1940, half a Ju 88 over Tangmere on 21 September and a 2nd Ju 88 on 30 September near Selsey-Bembridge. In December, the aircraft was passed to No 610 Squadron for a few month before becoming an OTU aircraft. It was struck off charge in January 1945. The picture below is the same aircraft photographed from the side. And here another shot taken at the same time as the head-on picture. Here's another image via Sandy Johnstone of that Spitfire. I have said before that the only fault with it is that Airfix missed the personal emblem painted on it, but I understand that it was included on one of the Xtradecal sheets. Cheers, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NPL Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Xtradecal 48143 Battle of Britain 75th Aniversary Supermarine Spitfire Mk.Ia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisk Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 I know, but there is no mentioning about the camo on the leading edge. In addition, the squadron letters are too wide - a typical Xtradecal effort badly researched. There is a perfect side-on picture of this aircraft and they still managed to get it wrong. Cheers, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 On 10/14/2015 at 5:49 AM, Basilisk said: Yep, the one in the title. Sorry, I was a bit in a rush last night. It is BoB veteran X4382 LO-G from No 602 Squadron and the picture was taken at Westhampnett in late 1940 as there are no leaves on the trees. According to Spitfire Mark I/II Aces, this aircraft was flown by 11 kill ace Pilot Officer Hanbury, using it to destroy a Bf 110 near Beachy Head on 15 September 1940, half a Ju 88 over Tangmere on 21 September and a 2nd Ju 88 on 30 September near Selsey-Bembridge. In December, the aircraft was passed to No 610 Squadron for a few month before becoming an OTU aircraft. It was struck off charge in January 1945. The picture below is the same aircraft photographed from the side. And here another shot taken at the same time as the head-on picture. Cheers, Peter Bit late on this one! Thanks to @AndyL for those other pictures, great to see different pictures of 602 aircraft (any others would be most welcome!!) I did ask Airfix’s artist about the personal emblem, it wasn’t missed as such, but left off as they couldn’t establish what it actually was., and rather than put an inaccurate decal on, the left it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Roberts Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 (edited) This looks like the lower surfaces have been repainted. Not only the wavy camouflage on the wing leading edge, but also the lower cowling/tank on the nose has been painted up to where they join the 'cheek' cowlings. The cowling camouflage typically came down slightly over that lower cowling/tank area when first manufactured. Refer post 13 below Edited April 14, 2020 by Peter Roberts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 Quote X4382 Ia 1119 EA MIII FF 6-9-40 6MU 7-9-40 602S 10-9-40 610S 14-12-40 53OTU 3-3-41 412S 19-7-41 58OTU 7-8-41 Scottish Aviation 23-1-42 RNAS Arbroath 4-9-42 808S Machrihanish 3 to 11-11-42 880S from 1-12-43 Retd RAF at 45MU 10-9-44 SOC 26-1-45 I wondered if the wavy leading edge might be due to unit/MU application of Sky (or similar) but from the date, not only should X4382 have left the factory in Sky undersides, but also with standard under wing roundels. As best i can make out, X4382 has very small roundels out near the wing tips, maybe 30 inch. most odd! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie22 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Troy and Peter, I have strong doubts that the aircraft in the head on shot is X4382? What is the source of that info? I don't have that issue of Flypast so can't check the original source. Peter (Basilisk) stated that the head on shot was taken at the same time as the side shot of X4382 that he posted. That is clearly not the case. In the head on shot the main wheels are in shadow - in the side shot they are in sunlight. The prop is positioned differently in each shot. The tail wheel is at different angles in each shot. The trolley-acc is in a different position in each shot. I agree with your, and Peter's (Roberts), hypothesis about a repaint from the earlier black/white under surfaces is correct, but are we trying to compare apples and oranges here. I would like to see some positive confirmation that the head on shot is of X4382. Too many Peters in this thread!! Cheers, Peter M @Troy Smith @Peter Roberts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasermonkey Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Troy Smith said: I wondered if the wavy leading edge might be due to unit/MU application of Sky (or similar) but from the date, not only should X4382 have left the factory in Sky undersides, but also with standard under wing roundels. As best i can make out, X4382 has very small roundels out near the wing tips, maybe 30 inch. most odd! That'll be 6MU. According to the November 1982 Scale Aircraft Modelling article on Spitfires, No. 6MU favoured a 25" roundel on the undersides, centred 18" from the wingtip. I've seen it a few times before. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 I've seen it on BoB Spitfires, but didn't remember the SAM article. Nice detail, until asking "OK, but which Spitfires went to 6MU?" Maybe STH has the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Roberts Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) Magpie 22 raises a very good question. Are they the same a/c? The lower wing roundel looks similar between the side on and head on shots, but obviously not definitive. The points made by Magpie 22 regards differences in the two photos are valid. Perhaps the photos were taken on two different occasions? The question remains. However, the a/c in all three photos posted here have been repainted on their lower surfaces, when you compare the upper to lower surface dividing line on the cowling, versus typical manufactured demarcation. Still not definitive in confirming they are photos of the same a/c (side on vs head on). refer post 13 below The camouflage of this a/c in the two side on shots are hard to reconcile in the two photos in the post by Peter (Basilisk) in Post 3, but with careful comparison you can just make out the similarities. Another of the many cautions looking at B/W photos. The head on shot suggests that the demarcation on the port (left) cowl is a bit different to that of the two side on shots to my eye, but the angle of the head on shot makes this a bit ambiguous. Edited April 14, 2020 by Peter Roberts correction to post 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Postlethwaite Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 X4382 hasn't been repainted on the undersides, that's how they were coming out of the factory at that time. The nose demarcation was lower on earlier Spitfires but there are many photos of X serialed Spitfires with the camouflage demarcation on the panel line. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Roberts Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) Mark, thank you. You have certainly enlightened me! My understanding was that ALL Mk I Spitfires had that extended lower upper surface camouflage on the cowlings, but this is obviously incorrect. Do you have a time/serial for when this simplification happened? If not repainted, this raises the question of why the wavy leading edge demarcation on this a/c. Do you have an explanation or hypothesis for this? Edited April 14, 2020 by Peter Roberts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Postlethwaite Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 If I were to hazard a guess I would say the lower demarcation was used up until the factory changed from black and white undersides to sky. So R and X series probably had the higher position. The wavy edged camouflage on the 602 Sqn Spitfire is also seen on Cyril Babbage's X4541 LO-M which overturned on 12 October. It definitely hasn't been overpainted at the MU as the trestle stencilling is still intact so it was probably a squadron experiment, maybe similar to the Me109s that had the underside colour extended up and over the leading edges. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 19 minutes ago, Mark Postlethwaite said: The wavy edged camouflage on the 602 Sqn Spitfire is also seen on Cyril Babbage's X4541 LO-M which overturned on 12 October. It definitely hasn't been overpainted at the MU as the trestle stencilling is still intact this is X4541, I can't really see a wavy leading edge, or any stencilling, or is there another photo? Quote X4541 Ia 1170EA MIII FF 21-9-40 24MU 21-9-40 602S 2-10-40 damaged by Ju88 nr Beachy Head Sgt Babbage safe 12-10-40 AST SOC FH6.50 I must see if I can find out where in Iford this was. (it's about 3 miles from Lewes BTW) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Roberts Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Gotta say, I love this forum. Learning lots, and great respect shown by posters (well, most ) I would also like to register my gratitude for those who take the time to post. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Postlethwaite Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 The wavy edge is not as pronounced on X4541 but it is there so somebody clearly made a conscious decision to alter the standard camouflage on at least two aircraft. I doubt it would be the MU as I've never seen it on other squadron's aircraft. There is another photo of the Spitfire from the side but I can't see a way of including it in this post. Of course it could have just simply been one bored erk's way of retouching some chipped paint! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 2 hours ago, Mark Postlethwaite said: There is another photo of the Spitfire from the side but I can't see a way of including it in this post. Needs to be on an online photo host. I can host it if you can email it too me. I'm interested in this as it's local to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 13 hours ago, Mark Postlethwaite said: ..so it was probably a squadron experiment, ... If so, I don't recall Sandy Johnstone mentioning it in his book and he's usually pretty good on including the sort of anoraky detail we modellers love to know. Not that that proves anything: he may just have thought it not worth mentioning. 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