Spitfire PR Mk X camouflage query

[Properjob56]

Isnt it always the way. I finished my Special Hobby Mk X not 3 weeks ago when this thread would have been v useful! So as it stands resplendent in its off white, sorry PRU Pink, finery now every time I look at it I will think 'that really should be PRU Blue'...dammit

[Troy Smith]

On 22/04/2020 at 10:13, ben_m said:

I'm not sure I agree with the ms grey over pru blue scheme interpretation. Pilots' recollections are not flawless.

 

  

On 26/03/2009 at 22:20, Colin S-K said:

Short lived experiment, as it was superseded by the PR XIX. Why build a Merlin PR High Altitude Spitfire, when very soon a Griffon engined Spitfire, went further with better performance.....

Colours, look closely at photos, you can see colour difference on engine cowling. Medium Sea Grey above and PRU Blue beneath. Which matches with High Altitude scheme of that time...!

Reasons for me saying so....

I know a pilot that flew these aircraft......

Look at photo's....

feel free to email me at,

[email protected]

Will quite happily send CD of photos...

Hope this helps....

Colin

Not that this makes a difference..

I 'Run' the Photo Recce SIG.......

 

@Colin S-K has not been on here for nearly a year.  But he did specialise in PR types.   I agree pilots recollections are not flawless,  but given the PR X was a rare type,  a different scheme would be memorable, and it was a specific high altitude scheme. 

A lot of the veracity would be some information on the pilot.   if he flew various PR types, and was someone who went "Oh, Spitfire PR X, not many of those, flew one,  not the usual scheme"  

 

Some photos show overall PRU Blue.  Like this.

 

but a couple are on the cusp, 

A better copy of this must exist

this is slightly better,  if you open it in a new tab, and then enlarge, the rear fuselage underside does look darker, and there looks to be a line on the tailwheel doors.

 

 

the slight line can bee seen on the tailwheel door below, and there is a tonal change between the engine side and chin, and the UC door appears the same tone.

 

I am to an extent playing the devils advocate,  the 'line' on the tailwheel door maybe just shadow, and the different chin tone maybe just a replacement cowling in fresh paint.

But MSG over PRU Blue is documented by 681 sq in India, and it was the RAF high altitude scheme, and the PR.X was the first pressurised PR Spitfire, so testing the high altitude scheme is not a total wild card.  And there were only 16 PR.X as well. 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

Looking at the four photos in Eyes of the Phoenix, I remain unimpressed by the argument for the first two, the wartime views, being anything other than PRU Blue.  Which, it is worth repeating, was a high altitude scheme in itself.  The later two, just postwar, seem somewhat lighter.

 

Given that the role of a PR aircraft was to hide, the value of a light upper and side camouflage appears doubtful, to say the least.

[Sky dancer]

In the SEAC context, it boils down to the issue of trying to determine what is perhaps badly faded PRU blue and what is MSG from a B&W photo.

 

I agree with Graham, but post-war this Mossie was photographed at Saigon (in December 1945) - source is the IWM.

 

 

 

 

Again, this photo is open to interpretation - but in my eyes this Mossie is in the "high altitude" scheme. Doesn't answer the PRX question mind you...

Edited April 23, 2020 by Sky dancer
Mod. photo

[EwenS]

AIUI the Mossie PR.34s in the Far East were in Aluminium dope upper surface with PRU undersurfaces not MSG/PRU blue.

 

All Mossies in the Far East by 1945 were in overall Aluminium dope finish to preserve the wood structure from the heat. Now why PRU blue was added to the undersides of the PR.34 but not the PR.XVI I don’t know.

 

I had one other thought about the appearance of those PR Spitfires. It seems to have appeared in summer 1945. That was monsoon season with plenty of cloud about. Was that forcing those aircraft to operate at lower levels where grey was a better upper finish?

 

Fading paint is also possible. The most recent deliveries of Mk.XI had been about Jan 1945. So plenty time for paint to fade.

 

One other thought (I need to stop thinking about this). 28 sqn had been flying Hurricanes in the FR role but were facing an aircraft shortage by mid-1945. Between July and Dec 1945 they received at least 3 Spitfire PR.XI from 681 which were later returned. Eyes for the Phoenix specifically notes that on return they had gained white tactical markings. Was the change of finish connected to the move to 28 sqn, but on return no one could be bothered changing them back when PR.XIX were already being received.

Edited April 23, 2020 by EwenS

[Peter Roberts]

Hmm, that photo posted by Troy is different in quality to the others and does present a compelling case. I HATE interpreting photos!

 

I was happy to go along with other comments posted here that these a/c were PRU Blue, but now I'm not so sure. That chin keeps nagging at me. I don't believe it is dirt as has been suggested - the finish is too even and demarcation is clear along the panel line. Fresh paint - possible. The serial is missing suggesting a possible repaint, but my money is the sensor has removed it - there looks to be a pale patch in this area. Then, as Bob pointed out, there is no obvious demarcation on the tail wheel door, or is that because of reflection?

 

The other possibility is a note made in the ORB by the diarists for 541 or 542 Squadrons. I opened up the NA site only to find they are closed (no surprise there, I was being hopeful). Does anyone by chance have a copy of the ORBs for these Squadrons for May 44. I know, a bit of a long shot on several levels, but it is worth noting that 16 Squadron recorded the delivery of the pink FR IXs. in their ORB, so may be .....

 

PR

Edited April 24, 2020 by Peter Roberts

[rossm]

6 hours ago, Peter Roberts said:

The other possibility is a note made in the ORB by the diarists for 541 or 542 Squadrons. I opened up the NA site only to find they are closed (no surprise there, I was being hopeful). Does anyone by chance have a copy of the ORBs for these Squadrons for May 44. I know, a bit of a long shot on several levels, but it is worth noting that 16 Squadron recorded the delivery of the pink FR IXs. in their ORB, so may be .....

 

If you create an account you can get digital downloads for free while they are closed and the ORBs are available that way. I got the 542 Squadron one for May and June, but no mention of colours at all and they don't seem all that accurate in recording detail - there are many entries for Spitfire XI when the serial suggests it should be X.

[gingerbob]

Funny you should say that, Ross- here's what I'd already typed before you had posted:

 

Now that's a good idea!  I've started looking at 541, and they note the arrival of PR.X and PR.XIX in late May '44, but no comments about paint jobs.  I did find this in October:

 

Quote

The operational camouflage consisting of black and white stripes which has been in force since "D" Day, does not now apply to PR aircraft.  Stripes are being removed from aircraft when on inspection.

 

The record gives serials but either originally just said "Spitfire" or possibly "Spitfire XI".  Consistently, I noticed that the trailing 'X' was hand-written on serials that were PR.XIXs, and I began to wonder if the Mark was entirely written in later by someone (in September there is no Mark, just "Spitfire".  In either case, the Xs are just called XIs, and one general comment said that they were virtually XIs with a pressure cabin.

 

Ah ha! Finally in October there's a "PR.X", as well as XI and XIX- and Mustang IIIs for low-level, which came in June but didn't do ops until July. 

 

6th October a PR.XIX claimed one Fw 190 destroyed!  He was pursued and fired at, went into a spiral to low altitude, and the pursuing Fw hit the ground.

 

[ben_m]

8 hours ago, Peter Roberts said:

I don't believe it is dirt as has been suggested - the finish is too even and demarcation is clear along the panel line.

 

To expand on my dirt theory- the panel above the chin, under the exhausts, looks like it has recently been cleaned- the exhaust staining on the panel over the top of the nose (above exhausts) is strong, but stops in a hard edge along the panel line, suggesting the panel was cleaned off the aircraft.

And the intake under the chin still looks the same colour as the upper to me.

[Sky dancer]

 

I don't want to detract away from the Spit's and end up going off-thread.

 

Ewen - I hear what you are saying, but these Mossies are PRXVI's, not PR34's. If they were PR34's the camera bay would have been visible. The demarcation line in the photo is in the lower position, coinciding with the strake on the starboard side; the PR34's demarcation line was higher up. The roundel is also non-standard for any other PR Mosquito, being the small (16"?) size, what can be seen of the fin flash also suggests that it is the smaller size.

 

While the sky is cloudy, there is still sufficient sunlight to create shadows - in those circumstances I would have expected any silver dope finish to be brighter/reflecting more. Just my thoughts...

[Graham Boak]

Maybe just stirring a bit, but is that the panel line?  There appears to be two lines of fasteners above the demarcation - should there be one row on each panel?  Or not?  The sides of the radiator and the wheel door appear to be the lighter colour not the darker one.  If we accept (for a moment) the argument about fading of PRU Blue, and the panel line, then what we see is simply a replacement under-nose cowl.  Could this have led Geoff Thomas's observer to mistake the scheme?  I doubt it - whereas I might accept that PRU Blue fades in tropical conditions to a colour similar to Medium Sea Grey, I think I'd prefer to see rather more evidence of this effect in  b&w photos.  I'd also expect a rather patchier finish, and the underside would not be so strongly affected - which is contradicted by the wheel door.  Ditto the roundels.

 

As for the Mosquitos - why should anyone replace a perfectly good high altitude scheme for a different one, although possibly cooler,  when there was already a strict instruction to repaint the Mosquitos Aluminium?  This hardly seems reasonable.  The other possibility is that the photo is wrongly dated, and we see  the later PRU colour scheme equivalent to Bomber Command's change to MSG over Night.  Given the evidence of the Japanese POWs at work, this seems unlikely.

[EwenS]

1 hour ago, Sky dancer said:

 

I don't want to detract away from the Spit's and end up going off-thread.

 

Ewen - I hear what you are saying, but these Mossies are PRXVI's, not PR34's. If they were PR34's the camera bay would have been visible. The demarcation line in the photo is in the lower position, coinciding with the strake on the starboard side; the PR34's demarcation line was higher up. The roundel is also non-standard for any other PR Mosquito, being the small (16"?) size, what can be seen of the fin flash also suggests that it is the smaller size.

 

While the sky is cloudy, there is still sufficient sunlight to create shadows - in those circumstances I would have expected any silver dope finish to be brighter/reflecting more. Just my thoughts...

Good point re the Mossie Mark. I’d missed that.

 

Re the colour, there is an apparent strong reflection off the leading edge of the fin that is not suggestive of a grey finish, to me at least, and around the base of the fin. So much effort had gone into making the Mosquito survive the climate out there, I have a hard time believing that Authority would have allowed that to be undone. But the photo is interesting anyway for the underside finish alone.

 

As for the MSG/PRU blue debate, you’ll be glad to hear I’ve had no other thoughts!!

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, ben_m said:

 

To expand on my dirt theory- the panel above the chin, under the exhausts, looks like it has recently been cleaned- the exhaust staining on the panel over the top of the nose (above exhausts) is strong, but stops in a hard edge along the panel line, suggesting the panel was cleaned off the aircraft.

And the intake under the chin still looks the same colour as the upper to me.

just for comparison,  and note the above does look bleached out,  some  high altitude scheme Spitfires

This is also a bit washed out, note prop blades, and upper/under contrast, and with the split on the panel line (some have a curved demarcation) 

 

same demarcation.... and an interesting pic (note angled fuel tank line...) and the contrast we usually associate with the High Altitude scheme, I assume that this is the HAS ? 

curved demarcation line.

 

 

As an aside,  I do find the HAS a very appealing scheme.   I did have a phone number for Colin SK many years ago, as he would be a good chap to add more on this. 

 

EDIT - worth it's own thread

AB450 VII 3284 EA M45 FF 22-8-42 CRD R-R Contract Cv proto FVII M61 8-42 AAEE for trials R-RH 10-9-42 prop reduction gear change supercharger mods RAF Special Flt Northolt 16-9-42 original day ftr camouflage painted over PR blue upper/deep sky (No.2 pattern) under surfaces AAEE 10-42 carbon monoxide cockpit contam trials cool trials with new reduction gear R-R fitt of tail parachute and fin guard 124S 25-1-43 AAEE 13-2-43 CE 14-6-44

 

 

 

[Denford]

What a fascinating thread. 

Every posting seems to give confirmation first one way then the other.  Painting my PRX (modified Freightdog conversion) still on hold until there's a clear answer.....

But two questions.

- Why would the PRX have been painted other that the 'standard' scheme used on PRXl and PRXlX?

- Why does it seem that every photo of a PRX has had the serial censored?

[Peter Roberts]

I'm with Denford - this has become a fascinating thread, and I too would love some sort of confirmation. I find myself equivocating, one moment PRU Blue, the next High Altitude. I suspect this is one where the modeller uses their own interpretation.

 

To answer one of your questions Denford, the Mk X was built apparently as a high altitude reconnaissance plane, hence the possibility of being camouflaged in the High Altitude scheme in lieu of the PR scheme.

 

Thanks guys for checking the ORB's - pity they didn't have anything there, though interesting catch on the invasion stripes. Thanks for the heads up Ross on the down loads - I have an account so will have to investigate some more!

 

I get where you're coming from now Ben, and that does add into the mix. Troy, you play a very good devils advocate!  And as Graham has pointed out, the demarcation line is a bit funny. I think I am personally tending to lean to PRU Blue. (At the moment)

 

On a slightly different note, we have just had our minutes silence here for ANZAC Day - Lest we forget.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Peter Roberts

[Giorgio N]

The PR.X was meant to be used for high altitude missions but one of the reasons for the introduction of the Griffon engined XIX was to reach even higher altitudes. And yet this variant did not use the HFS but just retained the standard PRU Blue scheme until the end of the war. Interestingly the X and the XIX reached service around the same time (first PR.X delivered in mid April 1944, first PR.XIX at the end of the same month), so why use different schemes on types operating in similar way?

Of course early PR. XIXs were not pressurised but when the pressurised aicraft entered service they again carried the overall blue scheme.

 

 

[Troy Smith]

4 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

The PR.X was meant to be used for high altitude missions but one of the reasons for the introduction of the Griffon engined XIX was to reach even higher altitudes. And yet this variant did not use the HFS but just retained the standard PRU Blue scheme until the end of the war. Interestingly the X and the XIX reached service around the same time (first PR.X delivered in mid April 1944, first PR.XIX at the end of the same month), so why use different schemes on types operating in similar way?

Of course early PR. XIXs were not pressurised but when the pressurised aicraft entered service they again carried the overall blue scheme.

 

Good points.  But, the PR.X was the first pressurised PR Spitfire AFAIK?  

 

PR units experimented with camouflage,  PRU pink , the low level scheme of Extra Dark Sea Green/Extra Dark Sea Grey over PRU Mauve, for example. 

 

The Fighter Altitude Fighter scheme had been tested and approved, as useful high altitude camouflage,  and used on the Spitfire VII.   

Given the nature of PR operations, unarmed aircraft relying on speed and camouflage, any extra benefit from camouflage was worth considering (I'm thinking of the story of USSAF Haze Paint and how ANY edge was considered worthwhile) 

 

The PR.X is a rare bird, only 16 were built, and we have a whopping total of  4 photos posted in this thread, of 16 aircraft built.  There appear to be photos of two airframes.

One is overall PRU blue. The other is possibly something else,  resembling the approved RAF High Altitude Fighter scheme, which  for a high altitude PR type is not inconceivable experiment. 

If this was found to not be helpful, that would explain why the PR XIX did have this scheme. 

 

We also have a member who specialised interest was PR units, who had says this was confirmed by a pilot who flew one.  

 

While, as been stated pilots are not the best people to ask about colours,  if you are a PR pilot, and you fly PRU Blue Spitfires,  and one day you have a pressurised one with light grey uppers,  this maybe memorable. Perhaps just the one.

 

I did see if I could track down @Colin S-K, there is an IPMS Recce SIG, and I'm going to email and see if they know any more, or are still in contact with Colin, and link in this thread.

 

 

 

[gingerbob]

2 hours ago, Denford said:

- Why would the PRX have been painted other that the 'standard' scheme used on PRXl and PRXlX?

- Why does it seem that every photo of a PRX has had the serial censored?

 

1) Yes, that's what bothers me, too. 

2) The serial may actually be there, but it is small, and grey on PRU Blue... HEY, wait a moment!  If the serial is grey, I bet it ain't painted over Medium Sea Grey!  Anyway, see links to photos below...  [No, it is censored on "the picture", but present on my linked below.]

 

Some good comparison shots- IWM site photos, and you can look at 'em real big:

PR.XIX

PR.X

both taken in May '44.

 

Dinner time!

bob

 

 

[Giorgio N]

Yes, PR units experimented with camo schemes but in 1944 ? Most of their experiments were much earlier in the war, by '44 the camouflage situation of these aircraft seem to have been much more uniform.

I agree that for this kind of mission every possible edge would have been desirable, but would the HFS had been much better than the overall blue scheme ?
In the HFS the idea was to have PRU Blue undersurfaces as this was considered the best form of camouflage against the darker appearance of the sky at high level. At the same time the upper surfaces were in a medium-light grey as this would have made the aircraft less visible against the clouds or the haze when viewed from above. It's a logic that the RAF followed in other schemes, even postwar. With these concepts sorted, what now follows is my personal theory, based on some results from other camouflage trials but not related to any official document relative to the RAF PR schemes...

The need to be camouflaged from above is more important for a fighter than for a PR type as the former may find itself below the enemy while manouvering, even when the engagement starts with the enemy at a lower altitude. So the light/dark combinatin of the HFS makes perfect sense. A recce aircraft will most and foremost hope to not be seen, therefore camouflage from lower and side surfaces is the most important (I'm again assuming that an enemy fighter will reach from a lower altitude). For this reason I'd rather have the fuselage sides in blue rather than in MSG, that is what was introduced after the War. Does a lighter colour on top help ? It may help but ideally I'd rather keep a higher altitude and having blue top surfaces means that if I'm manouvering I'll never show any other colour to my opponent, so mantaining the effect of my dark blue-grey camouflage

So I wonder if by 1944 the PRU Blue scheme actually was simply considered as the best solution for the camouflage of PR types, with therefore no need to test other schemes.

Mind, I have nothing against the idea of PR.Xs in HFS, it would make for a more interesting model compared to overall blue (and yes, I have the Special Hobby kit in the stash to build at some point). However any time I look at the few pictures of PR.Xs, I can't see enough contrast between upper and lower surfaces to convince me of anything else than overall PRU Blue.

Of course if there's reliable confirmation from a pilot from the era this would add weight to the HFS ipothesis.

[Ed Russell]

On 4/23/2020 at 7:13 AM, Peter Roberts said:

 

 

This is one of a series of photos. There's not much doubt that they are in the High Altitude scheme but some of the photos appear to show them in a monochrome grey if viewed at low resolution. High res pictures show a faint demarcation line, not always on the panel line. Despite the scheme 451 were engaged in low level army support at the time.

Very interesting thread, sowing the doubt and confusion  beloved of some modellers (and non-modellers) all over the place!

[Troy Smith]

36 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

Yes, PR units experimented with camo schemes but in 1944 ? Most of their experiments were much earlier in the war, by '44 the camouflage situation of these aircraft seem to have been much more uniform.

but as I noted

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

But, the PR.X was the first pressurised PR Spitfire AFAIK?  

So, PR units would not have been experimenting with high altitude schemes, as they were not flying at  high altitude,  so new operating environment, possible test of new scheme that was used by high altitude units.

merely a suggestion as to why this may have been trialled. 

 

Anyway, I sent an email to the IPMS recce SIG to see if they know anything, or if they still have contact with @Colin S-K  and will report back if anything turns up.

cheers

T

[Troy Smith]

On 23/04/2020 at 14:19, Troy Smith said:

On 26/03/2009 at 22:20, Colin S-K said:

Short lived experiment, as it was superseded by the PR XIX. Why build a Merlin PR High Altitude Spitfire, when very soon a Griffon engined Spitfire, went further with better performance.....

Colours, look closely at photos, you can see colour difference on engine cowling. Medium Sea Grey above and PRU Blue beneath. Which matches with High Altitude scheme of that time...!

Reasons for me saying so....

I know a pilot that flew these aircraft......

Look at photo's....

I did some digging.  Colin's PB account is still up.   

there is this shot

 

captioned "Ken" 

 

so i did some more digging

and get this

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=111442

Quote

#3

Post by COLIN SHIPTON-KNIGHT » 26 Nov 2006, 19:00

Hello, literally only just found this site while looking for more information regarding 542 Sqn!

Coincidence that you are looking for info as well, and particularly about any veterans. Well only yesterday I came into contact for the first time with an 86 year old chap by the name of Ken Nicol, and he was a pilot on 542 and 541 Sqns, which were the two Spitfire squadrons flying from RAF Benson in Oxfordshire!

I've had a couple of conversations with him, and he has some fascinating experiences to relate, hope to meet up with him soon.

 

So, I presume this is the chap in question, I presume being taken on tour of the BBMF hangar?   Anyway, we now have a pretty good bet as to who the pilot mentioned was.   Which bring me back to this.....

On 23/04/2020 at 14:19, Troy Smith said:

A lot of the veracity would be some information on the pilot.   if he flew various PR types, and was someone who went "Oh, Spitfire PR X, not many of those, flew one,  not the usual scheme"  

 as i said earlier, and has been pointed out, overall PRU blue was the basic standard by this point,  so a PR  Spitfire with grey uppers that was pressurised would be something memorable.   Anyway, the quest  continues......

[ben_m]

On 4/23/2020 at 7:54 AM, ben_m said:

Just thinking of the 'high altitude' comments: I don't think the X was designed/used at greater altitude than the XI; the engine dictated the ceiling. Pressurisation was to increase comfort and physiological performance of the pilot.

 

13 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

but as I noted

So, PR units would not have been experimenting with high altitude schemes, as they were not flying at  high altitude,  so new operating environment, possible test of new scheme that was used by high altitude units.

merely a suggestion as to why this may have been trialled. 

As I noted earlier, I don't think the ceiling altitude of the X was greater than the XI, as this is dictated by the engine. High altitude was certainly not a new operating environment to strategic PR missions at this point; the 36" lens having been established as the tool of the trade. Their altitude was there main defence against interception. The introduction of the higher altitude XIX was sped up due to interceptions of XI by Me 163, which could climb faster than anything seen before.

 

As the unpressurised XIX was contemporary with the X, and the Griffon did allow for a higher ceiling, it could be argued that the XIX was the better candidate for a new high altitude scheme.

 

But there could be the argument that as the only pressurized aircraft at this point, they dedicated the X to high altitude missions, as the XIX's higher performance might be useful in medium altitude missions too.

AIRCRAFT OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE, 1939-1945: SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE.. © IWM (ATP 12822C)

IWM Non Commercial License

But if that were the case, why would they have oblique cameras fitted to Xs?

[rossm]

The only notes in the 542 ORB for May 44 that I can see indicating altitude are:-

 

a) that one a/c - PA885, an XI - was hit by flak on 24th May on a mission to 36" and 5" targets in the Ruhr. Even to glean that you have to look at both the Summay and Records of Events documents and it's the only time focal length is mentioned, or flak that I could see.

 

b) An Me163 gave up an attempted interception at 38,000 feet on 29th May. There is a note it is believed to be the first time the Me163 was encountered on operations. The Spitfire was MB791, another XI.

 

So nothing much to guide us on what missions were flown by which marks, although the XI plainly was used at or above 38,000 feet but I think we knew that.

[Denford]

20 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

Yes, PR units experimented with camo schemes but in 1944 ? Most of their experiments were much earlier in the war, by '44 the camouflage situation of these aircraft seem to have been much more uniform.

 

I'm going to finish my PRX as it would have been delivered, pristine PRU Blue overall.  Whether it was later (part or fully) repainted then ceases to be relevant.