Meteor Camouflage

Pardon me if I’m wrong but that looks like a Meteor F. 3. It’s got curved wingtips, whilst the wings themselves continue for a fair bit outboard of the Derwents. It also appears to have the smaller nacelles of early and mid-production F. 3s (although the last batch were fitted with F.4 nacelles). Given that 222 were equipped with the Meteor 3 for a while post-war, it doesn’t seem unlikely that it is an F. 3.

It’s got F4-style nacelles (continue back and forward of the wings, but the curved wing tips don’t neccessarily make it a mk 3.

The first few mk 4s were produced with the ‘F3’ style wing tips (making it virtually impossible to tell apart late F3s and early F4s) – EE525 was apparently the first with the ‘clipped’ wings.

As for a Meteor F4 in camouflage with codes, there is a picture of EE464 in full Day Fighter scheme colours in April 1946 wearing the codes ‘ON-F’ of 124 Squadron (albeit apparently serving with 56 at the time the pic was taken)

This is reproduced in the Ian Allan Post war Military Aircraft: 2 book on thhe Meteor, page 16.

Does this help??

Pardon me if I’m wrong but that looks like a Meteor F. 3. It’s got curved wingtips, whilst the wings themselves continue for a fair bit outboard of the Derwents. It also appears to have the smaller nacelles of early and mid-production F. 3s (although the last batch were fitted with F.4 nacelles). Given that 222 were equipped with the Meteor 3 for a while post-war, it doesn’t seem unlikely that it is an F. 3.

Camouflaged 222 Sqn Meteor

Does this help??

Prior to the painting (about 20 years ago) of MAM’s Meteor F.4 EE531 after a lengthy restoration, research was carried out and drawings prepared by Maurice Butler. I believe a conclusion was reached that no RAF F.4s with camo had squadron codes on (unlike the, later, all silver scheme). Was this correct? – The F.3s (and earlier) had codes but I don’t recall ever having seen a photo of a Meteor F.4 in camo with codes.

Roger Smith.

given that the first of the F Mk 4s was a conversion of an F Mk III, it is inevitable that it (and presumably other aicraft from the same contract converted on the line) retained the DG/OG/MSG Day Fighter scheme. However, by the time the production F.Mk 4 aircraft were being delivered to squadron service, AMO A.413 promulgated 15th May 1947, had changed the DFS to overall Aluminium. 222 Squadron, the first squadron to use the F.Mk 4 on operations did not receive their aircraft at Tangmere until December 1947, so the absence of photos of squadron service aircraft in camouflage is understandable.

It seems however that the Danish F.4s were finished in a Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey/Light blue grey scheme to the same pattern as RAF F Mk I/IIIs

Prior to the painting (about 20 years ago) of MAM’s Meteor F.4 EE531 after a lengthy restoration, research was carried out and drawings prepared by Maurice Butler. I believe a conclusion was reached that no RAF F.4s with camo had squadron codes on (unlike the, later, all silver scheme). Was this correct? – The F.3s (and earlier) had codes but I don’t recall ever having seen a photo of a Meteor F.4 in camo with codes.

Roger Smith.

the pattern appears similar for the Mark I, III and IV, but changes for the F8 and FR9. Certainly the profiles for the F8 in the Warpaint and SAMI datafile titles show a measure of commonality, reflected in the side profiles

I suppose it could be that somebody is applying an “FIII pattern” to an F8 on the assumption that it didn’t change…………..

but it did!

Hannants F8 or CA F8?

sk

Like they said.

All well and good, until you compare it to the profiles, of which at least half cannot possibly have this “standard” pattern on the top side.

Profiles, Mmmm. Often wrong, almost always an ‘impression’ – some done with excellent research, others knocked out to look pretty. Quite the secondary (rather than primary) source material.

And photos are no better: some could, some don’t. Some are preserved, and may or may not be accurate.

Discount the preserved aircraft from your analysis, also ignore non-RAF machines, and it’ll get a bit clearer. You might find that some confusion is the role and mark of Meatbox dictated the scheme – most obvious being day fighters vs night / all weather schemes.

So… was/is there an RAF equivalent of the USAF TO publications which shows the specific pattern to be applied to each type of aircraft? Would RAF painters stick to it religiously?

Yes, yes (generally, when painting, unless there was a major ‘flap’ on). Not so much ‘religion’ as ‘on a charge’. 😉

And if not, would you expect all the aircraft at the same unit at the same time to be painted the same way?

One of the few things one can generalise about is that NO unit, in peacetime, would ever have all its aircraft ‘painted the same way’ as there’s never been a case when units would paint all their aircraft themselves in a short period of time, so no. A unit never had enough painters to do such a thing.

Exceptions would be when a unit was sent from one zone to another and a new camouflage type was required on all machines – this usually was messy and rough and amuses camouflage gurus ad infinitum (e.g. deployment from Europe to N. Africa) or wargames schemes (e.g.USAAC, 1941) which would be contemporary but usually not the same. This never (IIRC) applied to Meatboxes in RAF use.
HTH.

I’m puzzled. So… was/is there an RAF equivalent of the USAF TO publications which shows the specific pattern to be applied to each type of aircraft? Would RAF painters stick to it religiously? And if not, would you expect all the aircraft at the same unit at the same time to be painted the same way?

bestest,
M.

Don’t know a number but all camo schemes followed standardised patterns for each aircraft type. They are a balance of light and dark tones to break up an aircraft’s shape in a scientifically determined way.

All British post-war camouflaged aircraft had schemes based on specific patterns for mission type. If you look at the patterns for the V-bombers you will see that despite shape differences the same pattern is discernible in each. It is the same for fighters as well.

In WW2 all aircraft had standardised patterns for the tonal differences, and there was little leeway for variation in this. At the beginning of the war the AM authorised four schemes – A, B, C and D. The A and B were mirror images of each other as were the C and D. As wartime production became more urgent three were dropped but the one that remained was standard in its tonal pattern for all aircraft.

This was taken a step further in biplanes where shadow shading was used which is a scheme where colours that are in the shadow of an another surface were painted in lighter tones of the standard colours e.g. Dark Earth/Light Earth etc.

Some aircraft may differ in exact detail but the overall tonal patterns are the same. Camouflage was too important to be left to impressionistic renderings by aircraft painters at the depots or the factories.

So… was/is there an RAF equivalent of the USAF TO publications which shows the specific pattern to be applied to each type of aircraft? Would RAF painters stick to it religiously? And if not, would you expect all the aircraft at the same unit at the same time to be painted the same way?

Camouflage schemes for specific aircraft were usually produced by the aircraft manufacturer based on general military requirments. The manufacturer would produce a drawing with quite specific measurements for the camouflage lines. There is a lot of debate about this subject but if you use say the Spitfire as an example the Supermarine drawings are quite definite about the camou pattern and where each wavy line starts and ends, the drawings are very precisely dimentioned. By and large these drawings were followed in the factory and produced a surprising level of uniformity. If you look at photos of Spitfires lined up on the Castle Bromwich apron they are all basically the same and conform quite closely to the standard design. Now having said that there are many examples of where uniformity was lost and camou patterns looked nothing like the standard design. Desert operated Spitfire V’s had quite different camouflage lines and there are many other examples of ‘strange’ schemes to be found. However, by and large, these schemes were applied to a standardised design and were not just sprayed on however the painter felt on any particular day. Although I am no authority on the Meteor I am sure you will find that Glosters produced painting drawings showing the fighter camouflage and roundel setting out. It is possible that they were altered for some reason in the field but I would expect a good degree of uniformity if I was looking at a group of similar aircraft in the same squadron at the same time. Hope this helps.