Hunter F1 WT680

Kelvin – I think it’s perfectly fair for the public to comment on the colour schemes worn by aircraft at museums. All of the museums are open to the public so in many ways the schemes are both to make the aircraft interesting and attractive to the visitor and on the other hand preserve them as such.
I note with interest your information on why your former Danish F.51
is painted as a Horsham St Faith based Hunter . You might however find it interesting that currently at Scampton is Hunter F.4 WV276 . This I believe
flew from Horsham with 74 Squadron coded ‘P’ in the 1950’s -she is currrently for sale.

Here here!!!!

Albert, I think the choice of Norwegian colours was accompanied by some folding money, generated by a Norwegian TV movie, which the Shuttleworth needed at the time. I’m sure one of the SVAS members can give you chapter and verse so if the numbers come up on Saturday night you could contibute to a restoration to RAF colours?

Absolutely right, but that was several years ago! I was talking to Chris Morris, Shuttleworth’s engineer, about this during the summer and he told me they were planning to repaint the Gladiator in a RAF Malta camouflage scheme this winter…so we will just have to wait and see! :rolleyes:

So you’re saying that if a museum aircraft has no interior, that makes it okay to paint it in false colours???….hmm, okay tomorrow we’ll paint the F-100 pink to ‘please the lady visitors’, as there is no engine in that??? :diablo:

Nice, there could be some mileage in that. Sales of F100 kits to the ladies might shoot up, maybe a compact and some Super Sabre cosmetics. 😀

If anybody doesn’t want one of there Hunters and wants to give it away I’ll have it!

I really dont think it matters what the service life of an exhibit like this is as long as its painted in an accurate scheme of one of its contemporaries. If no Black Arrow Hunters had been preserved is it right that all future generations be robbed of the opertunity to see a Hunter for real in this scheme just because the perticular aircraft had a more mundane service life?

At the end of the day whoever owns it can paint it how they like. 🙂

Ozplane- I think you missing the point. The fact is that there are Hunters in the U.K which become available to museums etc. I can think of one ex RAF T.7 readily which is used for rescue training. The museums that acquired Hunter F.51’s as they are correctly titled did so because nothing else was available at the time. Times have changed and RAF Hunters are whilst not plentiful are available at realistic figures.
The question then has to be do we preserve the history of the Danish Air Force or concentrate on preserving Hunters which apart from being built here have a direct RAF /FAA relevance to the U.K.
This doesn’t mean a wholesale disposal of Danish Hunters but the principle of using exchanges to broaden our and their heritage.

So Albert and Mark, can we assume you’ll be heading up the A17, paint brushes in hand, to correct the “mistakes”. Come on guys, at least they are making a go of preserving the airframe.

I wondered how long it would take before a reply like this appeared.

ozplane, perhaps you’d like to re-read my post. I said…

I’m delighted to see ‘680 being so well looked after

…that means that I’m delighted to see that ‘680 is being so well looked after! I’m complimenting the owners you see, not knocking them.

However, if you have a Hunter F.1 (a mark that was relatively short lived and out of service long before the mid-1960s when this camo scheme was introduced) and you are going to spend a lot of time and money repainting it, then it makes sense to me to paint it in the correct colour scheme for the aircraft and time period. I doubt it costs any more to get it right than to get it wrong.

My humble opinion is that this aircraft seems to be pretending to be a much later mark of Hunter than it really is and a Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey/Silver high gloss finish colour scheme with hard-edged camo pattern would be more appropriate.

Now the owners may have a good reason for deciding to paint it this way, but wouldn’t it be a shame if it’s ended up painted like this because of a lack of proper research? I think so.

Albert, I think the choice of Norwegian colours was accompanied by some folding money, generated by a Norwegian TV movie, which the Shuttleworth needed at the time. I’m sure one of the SVAS members can give you chapter and verse so if the numbers come up on Saturday night you could contibute to a restoration to RAF colours?

Re the BBMF aircraft, at least they retain their RAF identities including correct serial, although regularly change markings. I think the most significant warbird tragedy is seeing the Shuttleworth Gladiator flying in bogus Norwegian colours! I don’t mind if squadron markings are changed as long as the aircraft retains its correct nationality and serial number. I long for the day when the Gladiator returns to being L8032 and in RAF markings!

From the City of Norwich Aviation.

We have an ex Danish Hunter and we have repsrayed it in an RAF colour scheme.

We choose not to comment on why any other Museum or individual have painted their aircraft in the scheme of their choice, but will say why we have our Hunter in RAF colours.

The Danish mark of Hunter is externally the same as the RAF F4. F4’s and F6’s were based at RAF Horsham St Faith with 74 Squadron. RAF Horsham St Faith is now Norwich International Airport and that is where the City of Norwich Aviation Museum is. So our Hunter is painted to represent a F4 of 74 Squadron based at this airfield in 1957. We make no secret of the aircrafts real history in our guide book etc.

An ex Danish Hunter, although very nice, carries no real significance to the aviation history of Norfolk. Paint it to represent a part of the history of the airfield where it now stands and we think that it gains some local importance. The chances of our getting the real thing, a Hunter F4 or F6 that was actually based here? Slim indeed, but if we did, I’m sure that we would move the ex Danish aircraft on.

Perhaps a polite enquiry to the organisations or individual’s who have charge of an aircraft painted in a different scheme to that in which it was operational would give the reasons why the markings have been changed. This could include the RAF Battle of Britain Flight, some of their aircraft are not in their orginal schemes, is this wrong too?

Kelvin Sloper
City of Norwich Aviation Museum
Horsham St Faith

PS When we prepared our Hunter for painting we removed the following schemes, 43 Squadron, Black Arrows and 4 FTS, the orginal Danish paint was in superb condition under all these!

The fact remains that a Hunter, whether it’s Danish or not, can be the key feature of a small collection and suggesting that it should go back to Denmark is patronising at best. I am intrigued as to what “bit” you have done.

Ozplane – I wasn’t aware I was being generous with other peoples kit? I cannot think of a single ex Danish Air Force Hunter in the U.K which comes within the category of ‘significant’ or indeed ‘benchmark’ on the National Aviation Heritage Register . For that matter the percentage which have a roof over their heads is miniscule so I hardly think if any left the U.K we would be robbing any collections of their prime exhibit.
The reality is that the numbers of aircraft outside which are massively duplicated tend to be those with the highest attrition rate. Witness the forty three Vampire T.11’s donated to preservation groups and schools/colleges in 1973. The number remaining which are actually intact viable airframes can be counted on the fingers of one hand! Similarily the Whirlwind type which was acquired en-mass by groups are becoming quite rare in good order.
Do you think it’s better not to comment on the state of aircraft preservation and indeed co-operation between groups or believe
that we should be voiciferous in the preservation of our aviation heritage.
And before you say ‘what have you done ‘- well I have done a bit!

As long,I suppose, it didn’t form the centre-piece of your collection David? Good of you to be so generous with other people’s kit.

Possibly Damien – it’s however worth noting that very little real research has been done on the numbers of the public brought in by ‘new’ paint schemes.
Certainly they might attract enthusiasts for the picture but that’s hardly massively profitable.
If you look at the cost of repainting and man hours spent on a project and compare that to spending the time on something significant to help that survive longer it’s hardly justified.
The simple fact is that the Danish Air Force Hunter is massively over
preserved in the U.K because of their donation by the then Hawker Siddeley
to groups. Thankfully former RAF and FAA examples are getting preserved but the numbers and spread of types certainly isn’t uniform. Whilst I don’t blame the groups that accepted Danish Hunters in the first place – times have changed and I would be in favour of a couple going back to the Danish to increase their perception of the type.

So Albert and Mark, can we assume you’ll be heading up the A17, paint brushes in hand, to correct the “mistakes”. Come on guys, at least they are making a go of preserving the airframe.

Give it a few years and the number of museum Hunters wearing spurious Black
Arrows schemes should just about cover the whole team ! Seems a shame when the Danish Hunter at Farnborough looks quite pleasing in genuine colours.

Quite agree….the one at Brooklands looks very nice also!

Give it a few years and the number of museum Hunters wearing spurious Black
Arrows schemes should just about cover the whole team ! Seems a shame when the Danish Hunter at Farnborough looks quite pleasing in genuine colours.

Well in MAM’s defence they have an F.6A in an accurate scheme, which is in the queue for a repaint. The F.4 is just a gutted shell, so it’s basically in use as a ‘crowd pleaser’ hence an aerobatic team scheme rather than the Danish colours (which it had worn previously anyway, and which were pretty dull!).

So you’re saying that if a museum aircraft has no interior, that makes it okay to paint it in false colours???….hmm, okay tomorrow we’ll paint the F-100 pink to ‘please the lady visitors’, as there is no engine in that??? :diablo:

I’m delighted to see ‘680 being so well looked after, but what a shame that they haven’t taken the opportunity to apply a proper F.1 colour scheme. The incorrect scheme when on display at Aberporth seems to have just been replicated – minus the 54 Sqn. badges.

With High Speed Silver undersides instead of the much later Light Aircraft Grey, 3 colour roundels and hard-edged camo pattern instead of ‘soft’ edges, she would have looked like an F.1 rather than appearing to be disguised as an FGA.9 or F.6.

Maybe they had their reasons, or it may just be down to bad research. Pity.

Quite agree! It’s just as bad as the Midland Air Museum painting their Danish Hunter F.4 as a RAF ‘Black Arrow’ F.6 !! 🙁

I’m delighted to see ‘680 being so well looked after, but what a shame that they haven’t taken the opportunity to apply a proper F.1 colour scheme. The incorrect scheme when on display at Aberporth seems to have just been replicated – minus the 54 Sqn. badges.

With High Speed Silver undersides instead of the much later Light Aircraft Grey, 3 colour roundels and hard-edged camo pattern instead of ‘soft’ edges, she would have looked like an F.1 rather than appearing to be disguised as an FGA.9 or F.6.

Maybe they had their reasons, or it may just be down to bad research. Pity.

Blimey,it seems a bit exposed,is there any protection for it from either people / vandals or the elements?.