Spitfire MK V Trop walk way lines

[Crane]

I have found an old thread here on the forums discussing the walk way lines. From what I understand in post #8, you should find mirror images of the walk way lines on Spits with 2 radiators. I see this pattern on MK V Spits all the time in online searches. From what I understand, they are incorrect? (the MK Vs only have 1 radiator)?

 

[Graham Boak]

They do have an oil cooler.  However, the limitation is usually to protect the upper skins (and wing strength) rather than because of some item underneath.  I don't know the original instructions, but can't see offhand any strong reason why they should differ between the marks.  And if you have found photos or them, then they didn't.  Perhaps looking at Mk.I/IIs would be helpful here?

[Giorgio N]

When you

4 hours ago, Crane said:

I have found an old thread here on the forums discussing the walk way lines. From what I understand in post #8, you should find mirror images of the walk way lines on Spits with 2 radiators. I see this pattern on MK V Spits all the time in online searches. From what I understand, they are incorrect? (the MK Vs only have 1 radiator)?

 

 

 

Do you mean you see this in images of real aircraft or of models ? If real aircraft, then that aircraft was like that and it's "correct". If models or museum pieces, then they are likely wrong...

It's not always easy to see the walklines well in pictures from the era, the best example is in the series of air-to-air pictures taken of MB882, the last Mk.XII built. There's one picture in particular that shows the asimmetric treatment of the walk-lines very well: on the cockpit side the line at some point turns 90 degree to the rear to allow access to the cockpit, while on the other side keeps going straight to the wing-fuselage joint. Mk.Vs had this same style. Mk.VIIs and following have a symmetrical style.

Compare this Mk.Vb

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/spitfire/spitfire-lf-m-vb-ab502/

 

To this VIII or IX (not all the walkline is visible because of the repaint above the original RAF roundel

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/spitfire/dukw-sicily-1943/

 

Or check this well known picture of an FAA Mk.V

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/spitfire/spitfire-and-corsair-at-hms-fledging/

 

In the latter you can also see well what the late Edgar Brooks meant for "Z" shape of the walk line,

Edited July 9, 2020 by Giorgio N

[spitfire]

More info from Edgar' notes

 

The most visible change was in the walkway lines, which, initially, were a straight line on the starboard wing, along the line of the mainspar, from root fairing to wingtip (sometimes turning at right-angles at the wingtip join, forward to the leading edge. The port wing's lines took the same path, from the wingtip inwards, but stopped about 18" short of the wing root, turning down towards the trailing edge. This holds good for those airframes with a single radiator + oil cooler (I - VI + XII & some IXs converted from Vs) since the emphasis was on keeping the erks off the thin metal over the radiator; when the two-radiator Marks appeared, the metal, over the radiators, was strengthened, and the starboard lines mirrored those on the port wing, so the erks could use either wingroot. Remember that the walkway lines should never go on top of the roundels (a common error.) "Walkway forward" & "Walkway inboard" should be readable from the wing trailing edge, and on the opposite side of the lines to the reader.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[Crane]

I was going to post pictures, but they were so plentiful that I decided not to. In that case, I should have been more clear and stated that it was pictures of models that I thought were incorrect. And after reading the replies here, I am sure they are incorrect.

 

I just noticed something else, in this picture https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/spitfire/spitfire-and-corsair-at-hms-fledging/

the walk way line is not painted between the spar reinforcements.

 

Thank yous!

 

 

[Seawinder]

Hi Crane. Your OQ was about Mk. V trops. I'm pretty sure I recall a thread from some years ago in which people opined that planes receiving MU theater repaints probably didn't have the walkway lines replaced, so that might be something to keep in mind.

[Crane]

7 hours ago, Seawinder said:

Hi Crane. Your OQ was about Mk. V trops. I'm pretty sure I recall a thread from some years ago in which people opined that planes receiving MU theater repaints probably didn't have the walkway lines replaced, so that might be something to keep in mind.

ahh yes. thank you for pointing that out

[malpaso]

On the other hand many (most?) Trops were painted in Desert colours at the UK factory so would probably have a full complement of stencils.  At least on the day they arrived in theatre.

[Giorgio N]

The majority of MU level repaints on Mk.V trops in the MTO was indeed not of aircraft originally in other schemes repainted in desert scheme but was was the opposite: aircraft that were originally in desert scheme (from the factory) that at some point were refurbished and repainted in the then current Day Fighter Scheme... or some approximation of this.

This was done on all former US operated Spitfires in the MTO, that were then assigned to Free French, Yugoslav or Italian units, but also on RAF operated aircraft. And not only on Spitfire Vs, a number of former USAF Mk.VIII was also repainted and issued to RAF units.

The same happened in India for aircraft assigned to service in SEA: a large number of Spitfires arrived in the desert scheme and this was converted to a different scheme when these were requested (generally the green/brown scheme).

Most of us on this forum are well aware of it, but may be worth repeating that repaints at that level were done by specialised units that had all the expertise and the equipment required to do a proper job. While it is true that some MUs followed the rules better than others (witness the number of DFS Spitfires with grey and green reversed for example), we should not think that these were repaints done by "some guy with whatever he could find on a remote field" who couldn't be bothered with what the regulations requested.