TE311

Errors on in-service aircraft are of course on-going, but most manage to keep the display team to spec!

http://rnzaf.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=Postwar&thread=11356&post=180564

Nice to read of the part that exchanging TB382 played in getting her airborne. I look forward to the day when both can hopefully fly together.

When the paint layers on Seafire PP972 was ‘investigated’ in France in 1980 it was noted that at one time it had been painted as ‘PP792’!!

Mark

Drawings are drawings. For example, I still have to find the first BAF Fouga that was painted 100% according to the TO!

Official drwaings are a very good reference source as a starting point, but period photographs cannot be wrong at the end of the day. If there is a period photograph of the subject aeroplane, taken at the time period that it is to be portrayed as, then there is no argument. There are numerous errors and deviations from the official drawaings prevelant in nearly all colour schemes, even in service. When the unit I was on in the RAF became a reserve Squadron with a winged camel as it’s badge, No.45, the RAF painters managed to paint the Squadron badge with the wings on upside down on the first aircraft they did. Now if you restored that particular aeroplane to those Squadron markings, it would have to be wrong to be right. 🙂 Whether the “Walkway Inboard” stencil is correct to drawing or not, you can guarantee that some tw*t having a “sit in it” will ignore it and stand on the u/c bay bulge anyway, they usually do…:rolleyes:

Edgar – I think I am just mis-reading your point – your actually saying what is applied to TE311 is incorrect? ….

I’m not even going that far, just pointing out that it differed from an official drawing.

Some (and a good number of their employees) post and read here. Its still a wonderful resource.

Getting the latest updates on Spitfires -Burma and the rest of historic aviation.

Out of interest if this forum is largely laughed at by operators -which one do they use ?

For what?

Edgar – I think I am just mis-reading your point – your actually saying what is applied to TE311 is incorrect? This detail is one which I suspect can be demonstrated either way by numerous period examples. The IWM shot above demonstrates it the other way round to the Mk.21 drawing and generally we apply that particular instruction that way round too as its just seems more logical for it to read correctly to an individual mounting the aircraft.

The Mk 21 drawing only proves one thing – that is how it ‘should’ have been applied to a Mk. 21. I say that with a little cynicism as I use that drawing quite regularly 🙂

Antoni – the correct wording is WALKWAY INBOARD….

Out of interest if this forum is largely laughed at by operators -which one do they use ?

I’d just paint the thing pink:diablo:

Edgar you said the drawing was wrong (180 degrees out)

Sorry, but I said no such thing, I simply wrote what the drawing depicts. The word “wrong” does not appear anywhere in my statement.

but you also said ‘they should be capable of being read from the wingtips’

which is how the drawing shows them.

– but thats whats shown on the ‘incorrect’ drawing whereas the logos should be capable of being read from the inboard access position.

Who says? Too often 21st. century practices, systems, and mores are introduced into 1940s methods, and it doesn’t work.
Wartime drawings were scrutinised by the Local Technical Committee, and the Resident Technical Officer (both answerable to the Air Ministry, not the company,) as was the work carried out. If the drawing was wrong it should/would have been changed, not just ignored (the addition of a white ring, in the fuselage roundel, in mid-1940, was the subject of a full-blown Amendment 201.)

The roundel was in the correct place until they trimmed the wingtip.

Bruce. I never imagined that I’d ever agree with you !

Edgar you said the drawing was wrong (180 degrees out) – agreed, but you also said ‘they should be capable of being read from the wingtips’ – but thats whats shown on the ‘incorrect’ drawing whereas the logos should be capable of being read from the inboard access position.

Edgar – not sure I agree, it seems to me to be logical that WALKWAY INBOARD should be readable from the point you access the arcraft next to the cockpit in order to contain access inboard of the black line….

The more that I read through National Archives files, the more that I find that 2013 “logical” doesn’t necessarily match with 1940’s Air Ministry logical.

Update – Actually Edgar – is there a typo in your message as that drawing shows them as reading from the wingtips

Which is what I said (or thought I said.)

Edgar – not sure I agree, it seems to me to be logical that WALKWAY INBOARD should be readable from the point you access the arcraft next to the cockpit in order to contain access inboard of the black line….

Correct. The IWM Spitfire R6915 is marked that way.

Six inches out is nothing.

Edgar – not sure I agree, it seems to me to be logical that WALKWAY INBOARD should be readable from the point you access the arcraft next to the cockpit in order to contain access inboard of the black line….

Update – Actually Edgar – is there a typo in your message as that drawing shows them as reading from the wingtips (ie the wrong way round)!