Is there something wrong with this Spitfire livery?

“Thanks Roger, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a static display that has that ability. It makes for a great picture.”

The Hurricane Mk.1 replica at Tangmere has an electric motor built into the nose to spin the prop. Haven’t seen it first hand, but I seem to remember a documentary about the Battle of Britain a few years ago which used this replica as a ground running prop for the reconstructions.I remember it didn’t turn half as quick as the one on that Spit seems to-hope they’ve got the chocks firmly in place!

A bit off topic, but I checked the “Pilot” mag website – the mag was out on 2nd of August but I CANNOT find it in Edinburgh! 🙁

Should be

Ahh, so that means it should be on the news-stands by now then?

The September issue came through my door yesterday.

Mark V

Is the “Pilot” magazine you mentioned the one that’s available from WH Smith and all good newsagents here in the UK?? I take it it’s a latest issue, as the one in my nearest WH Smith still mentions the ‘Spirit of St Louis’ crash. When does the new one come out?

Thanks Roger, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a static display that has that ability. It makes for a great picture.

Normally, the machine isn’t turning its prop. However on special occasions, and I was there for a photoshoot, they fired it up. Don’t know if they ever do it again. I just asked and they did, so maybe they also make it turn for others. BW Roger

I’ve got to ask again since I’m dieing to know, what’s up with the spinning prop in the second picture of the Spitfire in question. Is it really spinning as a static display?

Thanks Mark 12, helpful as always. The prop motor job was obviously painted by someone else who knew what they were doing.

Dude?!!

Quote me if you like, dude!

There’s always going to be some difference in a certain shade, hue or size, and so-and-so can argue with whatshisface until the cows come home that Spitfire X4321 had a slightly darker shade of green than X5678, but I just prefer to use what’s stated, eg: 23 (duck egg blue), 29 (dark earth), 30 (dark green) for a Spit Mk1. If it don’t look right, I find something in my supplies that does! Might be the same for some museums/operators. Don’t know, never asked one!

What about the Real Aeroplane Co’s PRXI? Not 100% accurate colours. I’ve got a Spit IX (1/72) that looks proper, except for the roundels because they were the only ones I had available.

Hello Mark V – Re request for comments on the Dutch Spitfires.
I would have to agree that all is not well with the green. It seems to have too much of a ‘spruce ‘ look about it but we might be being fooled by the film and the light. The application of the grey and green does not follow the approved pattern and the lack of blend overspray does not help. The 322 squadron codes have a passing resemblance to period photos and do not offend me as much as they do ‘L9172’. There seems to have been quite a lot of variation on the basic ‘chunky’ 3s. Well it is a replica by virtue of the undecarriage angle and the excessive ‘wash-out’ on the wings ( or is that ‘wash-in’?). I am slightly confused – are there two replicas or has the one with the prop motor been re-painted?

Hi DazDaMan,

Can I quote you on this, do you think “I’m no expert, but I don’t think even the most talented aeromodeller (which I am not) could get a wartime Spit’s colour scheme “exactly” right” would be a good thread starter?

It would certainly get the aeromodelling boys to their keyboards!

Spitfire 26s

As for the Spit 26s, I wrote an article on them (now on the Supermarine company website – http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Magazine.htm#article5).

You’ll probably find that most Aussie owners will just want to paint them as a representation. You’ll find, no doubt, that there were probably as many variations in Spitfire colours, even in the same squadron, as there were anything else. I’m no expert, but I don’t think even the most talented aeromodeller (which I am not) could get a wartime Spit’s colour scheme “exactly” right.

If you’re talking about the undercarriage, I think the designer wanted to simplify the construction and operation of them, plus it would probably make the Spitfire a bit less prone to nosing over, classic Spitfire-style.

Anyhow – would you complain if you had one of them??

Its a big Airfix model made from a kit.

Anyone notice the plastic replicated canopy.

It was more authentic looking before the re-paint (despite the undercarriage angle). There seems to be some kind of curse with many Spitfire replicas that prevents them from being painted correctly. The flying ‘Spitfire Mk 26’ replicas in the new edition of Pilot magazine also have similar problems, including mixing early fin flashes with type C roundels, perhaps the Aussie manufacturrs should speak to some of you aeromodelling enthusiasts about paint schemes. After solving all the design problems and getting these aircraft certified and on the market putting the right shades of paint in the right places should be the easiest part of the process. Shame.

The Soesterberg ‘Spit’ before new paint:

that’s why I wrote “Spitfire”. The problem remains the same however, why not paint it properly? BW Roger

Originally posted by Mark V
Enough of my ranting – at least they have preserved the thing.

Rant fully justified in my book, but surely it’s a replica isn’t it? Look at the angle of the wing against the fuselage and the rake of the undercarriage. If it’s an original, then it has severe problems.

This would also explain the lack of serial number.

I know they have an original there, but I would assume that it is kept indoors. This is more likely a gate guard or crowd puller.

Of course, I could be totally wrong again

Willow

Hi Mark 12, Any comments?