65 Squadron Spitfire YT-A R6883

[wally7506]

Some time ago PD Models made a 1/72 scale decal sheet for Mk I and Mk V Spitfires that had R6883 YT-A on it.  I can't seem to find any pictures to confirm this.  I'm assuming PD got it right.  Anyone know one way or the other?

[Peter Roberts]

 

PD prepared decals for this aircraft based on information from the book, "A few of 'The Few'" by Dennis Newton. There is also information in "The Devil at 6 O'Clock", written by Gordon Olive (the pilot) and Dennis Newton.

 

Olive stated that all his aircraft at that time had the code letter 'A'. Remarkably, he flew this aircraft from just after Dunkirk, through out the Battle of Britain and into 1941.

 

I also have not been able to find any photos of this aircraft, although I believe it does appear in a very short piece of rather blurry film showing two 65 Squadron Spitfires taking off.

 

PR

[wally7506]

Thanks, Peter!

 

Cheers

 

Jonathan

[Navy Bird]

This one?

 

 

Cheers,

Bill

[NPL]

One of the problems with decals is that it is almost never disclosed from where the information comes. X-tradecals have it, normally. There has been more than one discussion about W/C Kent's spitfire JA+K, and I have been looking for photos of W/C Peter Brothers' 'PB' Mk VIII which you see everywhere in colour profiles.

 

It should be standard to provide such information.

 

In this case, it is not so difficult to make a pretty correct model as there are plenty of photos of planes, both Mk.Is and Mk.IIs, available showing the standard markings of this squadron.

[Peter Roberts]

I think you will find that PD have also listed references for all the schemes depicted (this was standard for all their sheets).

 

 

 

PR

Edited December 9, 2018 by Peter Roberts

[Smithy]

I do wonder whether the information in "A Few of the Few" was based solely on Gordon's memory and recounting. Gordon recorded only serial numbers in his logbook so it would be interesting to know whether his idea that this airframe was YT-A is based purely on memory. I'm not saying that it wasn't A but I've learnt from experience that pilots' recollections can drift and become incorrect over time.

 

Dilip Sarkar could be one to ask if a photo exists as he has one of the largest collections of images of 65 from the Battle of Britain. I've gone through all his "Battle of Britain: The Photographic Kaleidoscope" volumes and although there's quite a few 65 Sqn images, there's none of R6883. I've always found him very happy to help with queries.

 

It would be wonderful if a photo of this airframe could be found to confirm the individual aircraft code. Another possibility, perhaps the family in Queensland has one? Kristen Alexander who is an expert on Aussies in the Battle would be another good avenue to pursue.

[GrimReaper09]

Did the op find these decals and if so, are there any more? 

[Seahawk]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 8:23 PM, Peter Roberts said:

I think you will find that PD have also listed references for all the schemes depicted (this was standard for all their sheets).

Indeed.  This aircraft is the 1st subject on PD sheet 72-015 Spitfire Mk.I/Mk.V.  The reference for the scheme is given as page 94 of "The Australian Aviation War Diary" by Dennis Newton, Australian Aviation, March 1981, Aerospace Publications, Weston Creek.  I don't have that reference  but the historical and airframe details and the very detailed stencil scheme diagrams with the sheet inspire confidence, inclining me to think that the transfer producers did their homework.

 

I also seem to recall, possibly wrongly, that in the mists of antiquity Revell issued their early Spitfire with these codes.  This suggests to me that some kind of reference material was available to them at the time.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Seahawk

[72modeler]

Seahawk,

 

Is this the one you recall?

Mike

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=1/72+Revell+Spitfire+Mk+II+YT-A&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit3YuFlt_gAhUHDKwKHajYAsAQ_AUIDygC&biw=1280&bih=654#imgrc=xB4b0kRPNu-sbM:&spf=1551382495054

 

 

[Peter Roberts]

A caution when using these sheets. They are going on 30 years old now (!) and may be a bit brittle with age. This may cause some subjects to beak up.

 

It is advisable to test with an un-needed decal first, or better, coat with a decal saver product (eg. MicroScale Decal Film. I think Testors also do a spray pack)

 

Cheers

 

PR

[Smithy]

11 hours ago, Seahawk said:

Indeed.  This aircraft is the 1st subject on PD sheet 72-015 Spitfire Mk.I/Mk.V.  The reference for the scheme is given as page 94 of "The Australian Aviation War Diary" by Dennis Newton, Australian Aviation, March 1981, Aerospace Publications, Weston Creek.  I don't have that reference  but the historical and airframe details and the very detailed stencil scheme diagrams with the sheet inspire confidence, inclining me to think that the transfer producers did their homework.

 

I still don't think that this is based on an actual photo of Gordon's R6883 but rather on a profile which was made based on collected recounted information. As I mention above Gordon only ever recorded serial numbers in his log book and the 65 ORB did the same. No photo showing this airframe has to my knowledge ever been published and I still think that without an actual photo this is still purely supposition.

 

As I also mention above, anyone seriously interested in pursuing this would be wise to get in touch with Kristen. If there is a photo of R6883 carrying her codes then Kristen will almost certainly know of its existence.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Smithy

[Peter Roberts]

I prepared these decals based on the somewhat limited information I had available to me at the time. Here is further information.

 

Gordon Olive recalled ALL his Spitfires carried the aircraft code letter 'A'. Newton covers this off in "The Devil at 6 O'clock'

 

This leaves the camouflage scheme - 'A' or 'B'. I don't have my information to hand, but I recall choosing the scheme based on accepted wisdom at the time and the odd/even serial number use. (Seahawk, thank you for clarifying the reference used - I was going from a (very scratchy) memory!)

 

As mentioned in post #2 above, I think there is a very grainy shot of this aircraft in some video footage, but difficult to decipher the camouflage pattern.

 

Smithy, I believe you are correct. There haven't been any photos made available of this aircraft to date. It isn't only Kristen who is an expert in this field, and many others haven't been able to produce any. There are several photos of Olives earlier aircraft, but not seemingly of this one, other than possibly in the scratchy video I mention. For those with an interest in Gordon Olive, I would strongly recommend reading the book on him quoted above - 'The Devil at 6 O'clock'.

 

Personally, I am satisfied with the detail to model this subject. 

 

PR

Edited March 1, 2019 by Peter Roberts

[Smithy]

3 hours ago, Peter Roberts said:

I prepared these decals based on the somewhat limited information I had available to me at the time. Here is further information.

 

Gordon Olive recalled ALL his Spitfires carried the aircraft code letter 'A'. Newton covers this off in "The Devil at 6 O'clock'

 

This leaves the camouflage scheme - 'A' or 'B'. I don't have my information to hand, but I recall choosing the scheme based on accepted wisdom at the time and the odd/even serial number use. (Seahawk, thank you for clarifying the reference used - I was going from a (very scratchy) memory!)

 

As mentioned in post #2 above, I think there is a very grainy shot of this aircraft in some video footage, but difficult to decipher the camouflage pattern.

 

Smithy, I believe you are correct. There haven't been any photos made available of this aircraft to date. It isn't only Kristen who is an expert in this field, and many others haven't been able to produce any. There are several photos of Olives earlier aircraft, but not seemingly of this one, other than possibly in the scratchy video I mention. For those with an interest in Gordon Olive, I would strongly recommend reading the book on him quoted above - 'The Devil at 6 O'clock'.

 

Personally, I am satisfied with the detail to model this subject. 

 

PR

 

The problem is that even a cursory glance at Gordon's logbook shows that all the Spitfires he flew couldn't have been coded A because there are periods where he was flying two or more aircraft. Take for instance July 1940, he flew nine different Spits operationally.

 

I agree "The Devil at 6 o'clock" is an excellent read but as always pilots' memories are not always infallible and i'd use the example of Gordon's logbook to stress that point. 

 

Of course there are many who have researched Aussies in the BoB but I brought Kristen up as she is the most recent to have done serious in-depth work on the subject and was in correspondence with families and had access to private collections of photos for her recent book.

 

Unfortunately without a photo this really is speculation at best.

[Graham Boak]

There's an important difference between all the Spitfires he flew, and all of his Spitfires.  It appears to have been normal practice for all officer pilots to have their own fighter, which they flew by preference when it was available.  When it was available but he was not, it would be flown by other pilots.  When it was not available but he was on duty, he would fly another, and this is what you see recorded in his logbook.  

 

If it is recorded that he flew this fighter regularly, and it appears in his logbook several times in close or near succession, more times than any other - at least when it was newer - then it is a fairly safe bet that it was his.  If it only appears irregularly, over a considerable period of time, then it probably wasn't.

[Smithy]

12 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

There's an important difference between all the Spitfires he flew, and all of his Spitfires.  It appears to have been normal practice for all officer pilots to have their own fighter, which they flew by preference when it was available.  When it was available but he was not, it would be flown by other pilots.  When it was not available but he was on duty, he would fly another, and this is what you see recorded in his logbook.  

 

If it is recorded that he flew this fighter regularly, and it appears in his logbook several times in close or near succession, more times than any other - at least when it was newer - then it is a fairly safe bet that it was his.  If it only appears irregularly, over a considerable period of time, then it probably wasn't.

 

Quite. But during the period I mention above he had 3 aircraft which were in very regular use. Therefore with only the serial number how can you tell which one was coded A without a photograph or other documentation?

 

In Fighter Command 11 Group squadrons during this period it was usual for pilots to usually have more than one aircraft that they usually used. Obviously this was due to the very busy nature of operational flying and the fact that due to servicing or battle damage one particular airframe could not always be available. This is very obvious in logbooks and ORBs of the period.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Smithy

[Graham Boak]

From that information alone, you can't.  You can however check whether these other serials are known to be linked to other codes, or whether other aircraft are known to have been coded A in this period.  

 

There would however be very few models made if absolute proof was required about all aspects of modifications, camouflage and markings.

[Smithy]

1 minute ago, Graham Boak said:

From that information alone, you can't.

 

That has been my point all along.

 

Gordon said that all his Spitfires were coded A. Now maybe all his regular mounts were, but also just as possibly and actually almost certainly they weren't. He would have regularly flown aircraft over the period other than being coded A so you really have to wonder whether his recollections are entirely accurate. Memory and especially regarding specific details like colour, numbers, letters and words are very susceptible to becoming confused or skewed over long periods of time, and when Gordon was talking about this, it was nearly half a century after the fact. Without a photo or some other evidence it is pure supposition. There's every likelihood that he might have become mistaken over time and be thinking of a specific airframe or airframes, earlier or later than the one in question which were coded A.

 

Bill Dunn swore black and blue for years that he never flew a Spitfire in the ocean grey/dark green/medium see grey scheme and yet photographic evidence now shows that he did. Pilots' memories aren't always 100% accurate.

[Graham Boak]

Agreed, but neither should we start from an assumption that they are always wrong.  It is reasonable to have some residual doubt, but unreasonable to go beyond that.  In the case of Bill Dunn, it is known that he was operating in a period when RAF fighters were in green and grey. Therefore there was a very specific reason to be doubtful of his testimony, on this point.  In support of this is considerable evidence that human memories are particularly weak when it comes to colour.

 

I don't see the same preponderance of evidence here.  If Gordon made this statement 50 years afterwards, then why did Revell choose this combination 30 years before his account?  There is some missing factor, and without finding this and assessing its validity, then the combination has to be taken as highly probable and a sound working assumption.

[Smithy]

4 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't see the same preponderance of evidence here.  If Gordon made this statement 50 years afterwards, then why did Revell choose this combination 30 years before his account?  There is some missing factor, and without finding this and assessing its validity, then the combination has to be taken as highly probable and a sound working assumption.

 

Do we know for a fact that Revell definitely depicted R6883 as YT-A?

 

Even if they had I would hardly say that just because a model manufacturer has made a scheme hardly means that it is definitely factual. There's enough examples of model makers (and decal makers for that matter) basing schemes on incorrect information or supposition as to make me wary of using that as a basis of fact.

 

8 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Agreed, but neither should we start from an assumption that they are always wrong.  It is reasonable to have some residual doubt, but unreasonable to go beyond that.  In the case of Bill Dunn, it is known that he was operating in a period when RAF fighters were in green and grey. Therefore there was a very specific reason to be doubtful of his testimony, on this point.  In support of this is considerable evidence that human memories are particularly weak when it comes to colour.

 

However It still shows the point that a pilot can recollect things differently from the actual reality and vehemently think so. Dunn in several interviews was emphatic about what he thought was correct when actually it wasn't.

 

Coding on aircraft is very tricky without photographic proof or corroborating evidence (such as a serial number from an ORB being matched to a code number in a logbook via dates).

 

All I am saying here is that we can make a guess., perhaps even an educated one, but it's still a guess. The original OP was asking whether there was evidence to confirm whether R6883 was coded A. The answer is, no there isn't. Thus far neither photographic nor documentary evidence has come to light which confirms this.

 

 

[Peter Roberts]

As Graham has indicated, pilots, and in particular officers, were often allocated, or assumed 'ownership' of an aircraft while serving with a Squadron. This became 'their' plane. Gordon Olive has clearly recalled that all 'his' aircraft were coded 'A'.

 

'His' first Spitfire Mk I was K9903, initially coded FZ-A, and later YT-A. He was flying this aircraft when he was attacked by several 109's over Dunkirk and severely shot up, force landing at Manston in May 1940. There are several photographs of this aircraft, including after its forced landing at Manston.

 

In August 1940 he was flying R6617 when an oxygen fire caused him to evacuate the aircraft. The ORB shows that this was 'his' regular mount from June to August. As 'his' aircraft, I would suggest R6617 was also coded YT-A. 'His' next aircraft was R6883 which he remarkably flew regularly from early August 1940 to early 1941. Based on Gordons' clear recollections, this aircraft would have also been coded YT-A. There are no photographs in print to date of these later two aircraft, although perhaps some grainy film of one of these aircraft taking off which is not conclusive regards serial number. However, in my opinion, Olives recollections are solid, and to me, enough 'evidence' of how the aircraft was coded. Others may differ. That is their prerogative,

 

PR

 

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Peter Roberts

[Smithy]

1 hour ago, Peter Roberts said:

As Graham has indicated, pilots, and in particular officers, were often allocated, or assumed 'ownership' of an aircraft while serving with a Squadron. This became 'their' plane. Gordon Olive has clearly recalled that all 'his' aircraft were coded 'A'.

 

'His' first Spitfire Mk I was K9903, initially coded FZ-A, and later YT-A. He was flying this aircraft when he was attacked by several 109's over Dunkirk and severely shot up, force landing at Manston in May 1940. There are several photographs of this aircraft, including after its forced landing at Manston.

 

In August 1940 he was flying R6617 when an oxygen fire caused him to evacuate the aircraft. The ORB shows that this was 'his' regular mount from June to August. As 'his' aircraft, I would suggest R6617 was also coded YT-A. 'His' next aircraft was R6883 which he remarkably flew regularly from early August 1940 to early 1941. Based on Gordons' clear recollections, this aircraft would have also been coded YT-A. There are no photographs in print to date of these later two aircraft, although perhaps some grainy film of one of these aircraft taking off which is not conclusive regards serial number. However, in my opinion, Olives recollections are solid, and to me, enough 'evidence' of how the aircraft was coded. Others may differ. That is their prerogative,

 

PR

 

 

 

Peter I am sorry if I have upset you with my questions about the veracity of Gordon's ideas about the codes carried on his Spits. But without photographic evidence or ORB/logbook evidence it's still speculation that R6883 was coded YT-A. I would love a photo to settle this. 

[Ed Russell]

I don't think he is upset but you have made this point many times in this thread. You know your subject and you are quite correct in that it cannot  be verified beyond reasonable doubt. Because you are anonymous I cannot tell whether you are involved in the model industry or not but maybe you don't realise that if a standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' was applied to all model products there would be very few on the market. Graham makes the same point in Post #17. Admittedly you have to decode it, but some decal sheets do indicate that a 'balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been applied.

[Peter Roberts]

 

Smithy, Ed is correct - I am not upset. And I concur with the remarks made by both Ed and Graham.

 

As I stated above, it is the prerogative of each of us to choose what we want to run with, or not, when it comes to evidence. And by extension, the degree of accuracy we wish to put into our models. In this instance I think you have made it clear you want further information on this subject. That is fine. For others, the information presented is enough.

 

I have a great interest in Gordon Olive, and other Australian pilots from the Battle of Britain, and I would most certainly be interested in any new information on this pilot and his Spitfires, should it come to light.

 

If you are keen for more information yourself, Smithy, I would recommend you contact Dennis Newton - I believe he spent a significant amount of time with Gordon Olive. I cannot be certain that Kristen has done so, as Gordon passed away some years ago.

 

PR

[Smithy]

21 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

I cannot tell whether you are involved in the model industry or not but maybe you don't realise that if a standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' was applied to all model products there would be very few on the market.

 

Hi Ed, I'm not involved in the model industry at all, apart from my ham-fisted attempts at putting them together. I work in historic aviation research so I'm probably a tad pedantic with details. 

 

20 hours ago, Peter Roberts said:

 

Smithy, Ed is correct - I am not upset. And I concur with the remarks made by both Ed and Graham.

 

As I stated above, it is the prerogative of each of us to choose what we want to run with, or not, when it comes to evidence. And by extension, the degree of accuracy we wish to put into our models. In this instance I think you have made it clear you want further information on this subject. That is fine. For others, the information presented is enough.

 

I have a great interest in Gordon Olive, and other Australian pilots from the Battle of Britain, and I would most certainly be interested in any new information on this pilot and his Spitfires, should it come to light.

 

If you are keen for more information yourself, Smithy, I would recommend you contact Dennis Newton - I believe he spent a significant amount of time with Gordon Olive. I cannot be certain that Kristen has done so, as Gordon passed away some years ago.

 

PR

 

Peter, I've been interested in Gordon for quite a few years. I'm originally a Kiwi but lived for many, many years in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) so I have a strong interest in the Few from Down Under.

 

Once again I hope that my professional obsession with exact details didn't offend.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tim