Possibly PR.X at Benson having D-Day stripes applied.....

[Troy Smith]

This was posted on @Etiennedup flickr

I think it's colourised

Applying Invasion stripes, 4 June 1944. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

But apart from interesting aspect of the stripe application,  Etienne posted it has a fighter windscreen, 

"This Mk. XI has a fighter windscreen (PR Spitfires normally had 'smooth' w/screens)"

So I posted  the unit had a few of the rare PR.X, which was the pressurised equivalent of the PR.XI.
I see no cockpit entry hatch, which were not on the pressurised Spitfires, so is this a PR.X?

 

The plane in the background look to be EN662

 the F under the serial is unusual.
Anyway from http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p036.html
EN662 PRXI 4452 CHA M63

FF 19-6-43
33MU 23-6-43
Benson 24-6-43 541Sq 10-7-43
106Grp Wastage Pl 18-6-44
8OTU 1-7-44 Crashed into North Sea on PR training sortie 18-12-44 FLt DM Crook+

 

Hope of interest.

[Giorgio N]

No entry hatch and the canopy looks to me the pressurised type, I vote for a PR.X, very interesting picture. 

[Bedders]

Yes a very interesting find. I'm also struck by the fact that just like the well-known photos of SR396, this airframe also has a fighter-type rear-view mirror. So perhaps it was standard fit on all 16 of them.

 

Justin

[MikeC]

Thw PRX certainly had a fighter-type windscreen: I call PRX.

[gingerbob]

Good catch, Troy!  Note also the whip antenna instead of mast, and the filtered intake.  The latter I didn't think was typical on PR.XIs (yes, 11) at this time, but a very quick photo-search leaves me less confident.

[Tbolt]

On 12/13/2022 at 7:15 PM, Troy Smith said:

This was posted on @Etiennedup flickr

I think it's colourised

Applying Invasion stripes, 4 June 1944. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

But apart from interesting aspect of the stripe application,  Etienne posted it has a fighter windscreen, 

"This Mk. XI has a fighter windscreen (PR Spitfires normally had 'smooth' w/screens)"

So I posted  the unit had a few of the rare PR.X, which was the pressurised equivalent of the PR.XI.
I see no cockpit entry hatch, which were not on the pressurised Spitfires, so is this a PR.X?

 

The plane in the background look to be EN662

 the F under the serial is unusual.
Anyway from http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p036.html
EN662 PRXI 4452 CHA M63

FF 19-6-43
33MU 23-6-43
Benson 24-6-43 541Sq 10-7-43
106Grp Wastage Pl 18-6-44
8OTU 1-7-44 Crashed into North Sea on PR training sortie 18-12-44 FLt DM Crook+

 

Hope of interest.

 

I'd say it's a Mk.X because as well as not being able to see cockpit hatch, the rear canopy looks to be the deeper type and there also seems to be the Lobelle canopy rail fitted. The M.XI recessed guide for the canopy extended noticeable further back than the rear canopy where as the raised one on the Mk.X stopped just behind the canopy.

 

Mk.X canopy.

 

 

Mk.XI canopy.

 

 

 

[Wlad]

Great find @Troy Smith. It's a PR X, for all the reasons mentioned above.

[FinnAndersen]

On 13/12/2022 at 20:15, Troy Smith said:

I think it's colourised

Agree. The RAF uniforms looks too uniform (pun intended) and there's a lot of other small clues...

[I Dole]

And the man with the spray gun.

Flying helmet, goggles and oxygen mask.

Who says they didn't take health and safety seriously back then.

[Tbolt]

5 hours ago, FinnAndersen said:

Agree. The RAF uniforms looks too uniform (pun intended) and there's a lot of other small clues...

 

I know very little about colourizing photos, but the strange thing is there some quite heavy purple fringing on the white of the invasions stripes and on some of the trees so while some of the colour looks a bit odd, if it's been coloured then it's been done quite cleverly. Either that or it was colour but it's been edited/adjusted quite a bit.

[Ivor Ramsden]

From the 541 Squadron ORB a Mk.X Spitfire, MD193 was first used on operations on 11th May 1944. The ORB lists them all as "Spitfire XI" but it also lists the serials. The very short time that the aircraft had been in service at the time the photo was taken is reflected in the immaculate appearance of this one. 

First ops were

MD191: 20th May

MD193: 11th May

MD195: 20th May

MD197: 24th May

MD199: 24th May

 

All were in use throughout June. Sqn Ldr Saffery, the originator of the photograph, flew MD193 on 5th June.

[alt-92]

3 hours ago, Tbolt said:

Either that or it was colour but it's been edited/adjusted quite a bit.

Some heavy JPEG artifacting in the clouds as well. JPEG is lossy, so each 'edit' will cause loss of information upon saving.

[MikeC]

5 hours ago, I Dole said:

And the man with the spray gun.

Flying helmet, goggles and oxygen mask.

Who says they didn't take health and safety seriously back then.

Indeed. It could quite plausibly have been one of the aircrew using his flying kit as a makeshift spray mask.  At RAF Benson, the main PR base, all aircrew and others helped.  ""During the first week in June all aircrew were summoned to their respective hangars, and were detailed to assist groundcrews in an important and urgent job.  The order was to paint three white and two black stripes ..."  (Focus on Europe, Ronald H Foster DFC CdG, Crowood, 2004).

 

And look how neat those stripes are - anyone still think that ALL stripes painted in the short period before D-Day were ragged because they were done quickly?  And if anyone wants to discuss this, let's start a new thread.  Sorry to divert off on a hobby horse, we now return you to your regular programming.

Edited December 15, 2022 by MikeC

[Phoenix44]

If its colorised they did a very good job on the sky. Put a lot of effort into the exhaust as well. As has been mentioned, the odd tinges of colour suggest a colour negative that's been over-reproduced. I'm.confused by the outermost white stripe - it's looks very wide at the leading edge, or is that just a photo problem? Interesting that the aircraft in the background appears to be unstriped at that time.

[FinnAndersen]

1 minute ago, Phoenix44 said:

If its colorised they did a very good job on the sky. Put a lot of effort into the exhaust as well. As has been mentioned, the odd tinges of colour suggest a colour negative that's been over-reproduced. I'm.confused by the outermost white stripe - it's looks very wide at the leading edge, or is that just a photo problem? Interesting that the aircraft in the background appears to be unstriped at that time.

I believe that what you see as a wide white stripe is the white stribe and some masking. Some of the paint is obviously done with a spray gun, hence the need for a mask.

[MikeC]

2 hours ago, Phoenix44 said:

Interesting that the aircraft in the background appears to be unstriped at that time.

Next in line I expect.

[Phoenix44]

On 15/12/2022 at 14:24, FinnAndersen said:

I believe that what you see as a wide white stripe is the white stribe and some masking. Some of the paint is obviously done with a spray gun, hence the need for a mask.

I think you're right, it does look different when you look closely. 

[Bedders]

On 12/15/2022 at 7:56 AM, I Dole said:

Flying helmet, goggles and oxygen mask.

Who says they didn't take health and safety seriously back then.

Then again, these days you'd probably get arrested for wearing that lot in a public place.