Mitchell II wing leading edges?

[Simon]

Hello everyone

 

I'm about to embark on the Airfix 1/72 Mitchell II, and have a question.

 

I'm doing it as FW199 EV-P of 180 Sqn, from early August 1944. I've come across a photo which I understand to be this particular Mitchell, a copy of which can be found here:

 

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/mitchell-of-180-squadron-being-repaired-in-the-background-news-photo/3380008?adppopup=true

 

Of note is what appears to be an FN64 turret under the rear fuselage, instead of the usual Bendix turret. I understand several of 180 Squadron's Mitchells had this installed - linky.

 

Anyway, on to my question: it seems to have dark leading edges to the wings. I've also seen them on the leading edges of fins and horizontal tails on other R.A.F. Mitchell IIs as well. Did Mitchells have de-icer boots fitted? Or are they just overpainted for protection?

 

Thanks

 

Simon

 

 

 

[ejboyd5]

"Being repaired" would seem to be a rather tongue in cheek caption for the photograph.

[Simon]

Yes, a slight case of 'mis-captioning'...!

 

If it is indeed FW199, it was damaged by flak on August 6th 1944, force-landed at Airfield B.7, and was category B/Ac (i.e. not repairable on site or by the Unit).

[alt-92]

2 hours ago, Simon said:

Anyway, on to my question: it seems to have dark leading edges to the wings. I've also seen them on the leading edges of fins and horizontal tails on other R.A.F. Mitchell IIs as well. Did Mitchells have de-icer boots fitted? Or are they just overpainted for protection?

Looks like painted. Especially considering the better POV offered by looking down the wing from the (presumably) Mitchell from which the picture was taken.

(oh and full fuselage stripes in December? )

[stever219]

Definitely de-iced boots: there is no reason to have painted flying surface leading edges in Night, the only bombers that had colours other than the surrounding camouflage on the main plane leading edges were Mosquitos that wore fighter-style Yellow stripes along their leading edges in order to confuse potential adversaries.

[Rabbit Leader]

It’s a shame that the tail section is not shown in that photograph, however I’d go with de-iced boots as well, seems to be quite common (although not on 100%) of Mk. II Mitchell’s. I’d study various photos and newsreels of the period to confirm your assumptions. 
Cheers.. Dave. 

[Simon]

Interesting replies, thanks everyone. On some photos they look quite well-defined, and other they look quite ragged.

 

I did wonder if the photo is of the Mitchell being re-assembled, rather than dismantled. It looks in pretty good nick. Maybe at whatever Maintenance Unit it was sent to? FW199 reappears in the 180 Sqn ORB in early November, so maybe the date is wrong on the photo caption?

 

Simon

[72modeler]

I had a thought- (Dangerous, I know!) Many times the rubber deicer boots were removed for one reason or another, on B-17's and B-24's especially; normally you will see bare metal where they were removed, as well as 2-3 holes at repeated intervals where the pneumatic tubes were located that inflated and deflated the boots. Perhaps this Mitchell had the boots removed, and the exposed bare metal was painted so as to not compromise the camouflage?  I don't see the rubber deicer boots, which lie slightly proud of the wing surface. Just an uneducated guess on my part.

Mike

 

See this discussion for more details and diagrams:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/216495-b-17-de-icer-boots/

Edited May 24, 2021 by 72modeler
added link

[G.E.SAUNDERS]

                     hi ALL ,

 

                                     I too was wonderin' about Deicer Boots on the AIRFIX 1/72 Mk.11/ B-25C.

                   Having built the Model as a Dutch N.E.I.A.F.  flown by  "Gus" HAGERS of the 18th Squadron  Batchelor Creek N.T. AUSTRALIA 1942-43

                   ........ so why on Earth would the Aircraft need  Deicer Boots ? .........  so I  sanded them orff !

                   All went well with the FLEVO DECALS FD72-003 that I applied UNTIL I discovered that the Pilot's personel  "Lienke "Motiff was twice the size it should be !                                   hhhhhrrrr !

                   So I have been searchin' ever since for the DUTCH DECALS Issue that I has the Motiff     ANY TAKERS ?

 

                                                                                                                              cheery "stay safe'n' model " mumbas !

 

                                                                                                                                                          Geoff

 

[Graham Boak]

Reat stripes were restored to the fuselage on bombers/transports in October 1944.

[BS_w]

11 hours ago, 72modeler said:

I had a thought- (Dangerous, I know!) Many times the rubber deicer boots were removed for one reason or another,

 

 

when the season is good and icing conditions is low, the deicer boots would be removed to obtain a better speed and reduced the consumption. The drag of this boots decrease the speed , 15/20 mph.

 

on this image de icer is in place
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/14th-december-1944-a-b25-mitchell-of-180-squadron-being-repaired-in-picture-id3380008?s=2048x2048,
but black rubber does no contrast with camo paint, we can see along the de icer boot the engine gray paint which protect the cement and the metal strip as stipulated by the EMM / installing:

[Dave Swindell]

On 23/05/2021 at 19:02, Simon said:

Yes, a slight case of 'mis-captioning'...!

 

If it is indeed FW199, it was damaged by flak on August 6th 1944, force-landed at Airfield B.7, and was category B/Ac (i.e. not repairable on site or by the Unit).

 

On 23/05/2021 at 21:32, alt-92 said:

Looks like painted. Especially considering the better POV offered by looking down the wing from the (presumably) Mitchell from which the picture was taken.

(oh and full fuselage stripes in December? )

The photo does appear to be late autumn/winter (bare trees in the background) so the December 44 photo credit is plausible. If the aircraft had force landed in August 44 but wasn't recovered / re-assembled until December 44 there wouldn't have been any need/urgency to repaint the airframe into current marking requirements until it was ready to be returned to service, 

[Simon]

 

4 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

 

The photo does appear to be late autumn/winter (bare trees in the background) so the December 44 photo credit is plausible. If the aircraft had force landed in August 44 but wasn't recovered / re-assembled until December 44 there wouldn't have been any need/urgency to repaint the airframe into current marking requirements until it was ready to be returned to service, 

As I mentioned earlier, it did reappear in the ORB in early November.

 

I e-mailed Getty Images to see if there's any further info to confirm the date and place. If it's taken on December 14th and if it's at Melsbroek, the ORB Form 540 for that date states 'no flying owing to bad weather'...

 

I've also requested the Form 78 for FW199 from the R.A.F. Museum, but the wait might be quite long.

 

I do have a plan B, and that's FL210 EV-T, which I think I have a photo of too...

 

Simon

[Graham Boak]

The wings do not have stripes, so the overall appearance is that for November/December 1944 but not August.

[Sydhuey]

Fuselage only Black/white ID stripes were added to Mitchell and Boston's of 2 TAF I think in Oct 44 and removed in Jan 45 as they kept getting attacked by US Fighters (Mitchells confused as Dornier 217's and Boston's as Ju88's !!!) , so Aug configured A/C no stripes at all ,Oct-Jan Fuselage ID stripes. 

[Simon]

Just to add to the mix a bit, in this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Royal-Air-Force-World-Colour/dp/1854092898

 

there's a photo of EV-P on page 48. It's not the greatest reproduction, but it's in colour. It's taken at the same time and place as the Getty image, but it's taken from a slightly different angle and so not the exact same photo. It's credited to the R.A.F. Museum, and captioned as Melsbroek, January 1945, and the aircraft is "being taken apart by a Repair and Salvage Unit for use as spares."

 

The paintwork looks pretty new, and actually looks quite green, as opposed to what by that date would have been quite faded U.S. Olive Drab. Could be the film used, or the repro in the book (which as I mentioned isn't great, TBH).

 

Oh, and the ing leading edges seem to be black...

 

EDIT - there's a copy here: 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/14227311050/in/photolist-29T31b5-76uZXH-8jz5AG-NT351P-NT351i-NT351Z-NT352k-8KETFr-NT351t-NT351D-fvyp5X-ek8hPZ-nFdFUo-dMKae4

 

Simon

Edited June 7, 2021 by Simon
Added link to colour photo

[Simon]

Hello again

 

I've just got hold of a copy of the September 1971 issue of the IMPS Magazine, which has an article about R.A.F. Mitchells, written by Malcolm Scott, who was with 180 Sqn from November 1944. There are a couple of snippets which I thought may be of interest:

 

'By the end of 1944 comparatively few Mitchells wore the standard daytime scheme of dark green and dark earth on the upper surfaces nor were they in the American olive drab. It may have been because the removal of the black and white invasion stripes was dealt with more speedily by spraying overall in one colour, but when I joined 180 Squadron in November 1944 nearly all the Mitchells of 139 Wing were finished in a grey green colour, which can be reproduced successfully by mixing 3 parts Humbrol matt slate grey (No. 31) with 1 part matt dark green (No. 30). The underside colour (usually divided by a straight line) was grey made up of from a mixture of 2 parts matt white and 1 part matt sea grey (No. 27). Code letters were either pale grey or dull red.'

 

And this:

 

'Although we had no use for it as part of a daylight bomber outfit there was, at Melsbroek, a B-25G. It had been specially adapted and in its solid nose carried a 75mm cannon, several 5 in. machine guns in the nose and in packs of two on either side, while the rear was covered with two machine guns in the tail and two more in specially made beam positions with the twin gunned turret in the rear position. I remember it was in the normal daytime camouflage scheme and carried only standard R.A.F. markings with no code letters. It had "PISTOL PACKING MOMMA" painted in small white capitals at an angle of 45º on the port side in place of the ID letter. I cannot remember the serial number.'

 

Simon

[72modeler]

IIRC, the serial was FR209. We had some discussion  about it on April 2017 and 2018, but I don't recall the content of the discussions- you could look for them.

Mike