A couple of questions for RAF historians –
What was the purpose behind the half white/half black underside paintwork on the pre-war aircraft? (Around 1938)
Why did the RAF alter its roundels so many times in the European theatre during WW II? I know what the reason was for the Pacific theatre markings having the red centres deleted etc, but the Euro theatre markings seemed to change for no obvious reason. At the commencement of the war, the fuselage roundels were surrounded by a thick yellow ring, which I suppose was deleted for the reason that they were too easy to spot. The subsequent designs included the thin white surround, the blue/red roundel only and the red/white/blue design. What was the reason behind each change?
What was the reason for the change in the design of aircraft identification signs? Some were light grey, others white, some thick lettering, others thin, some included numerals, most comprised three letters. All very confusing. Can anybody explain why they changed so often?
Regards
Wombat
By: VoyTech - 5th February 2004 at 12:56
quote:Originally posted by Whitley_Project
So did any fighter command aircraft fly in the battle of britain with half black/white underside colour scheme?
Originally posted by Firebird
The most famous has to be, Bob Stanford-Tuck’s 257 Sqn Hurricane DT-A with the black/white undersides.
Wasn’t the well known DT-A photo taken after the black wing was re-introduced in November 1940?
By: Firebird - 5th February 2004 at 12:50
Originally posted by Whitley_Project
So did any fighter command aircraft fly in the battle of britain with half black/white underside colour scheme?
The most famous has to be, Bob Stanford-Tuck’s 257 Sqn Hurricane DT-A with the black/white undersides.
By: dhfan - 5th February 2004 at 12:29
I hate it when people point out the obvious.:)
Especially when it hadn’t even crossed my mind.
By: Mark V - 5th February 2004 at 12:10
Originally posted by Dan Johnson
Just to add fuel to the fire 🙂Explain these two from 1941. Found in the Hawker Hurricane Mk.1/IV in Royal Air Force & Foreign Service by Richard Ward
from the old Arco-Aircam Aviation series.Dan
Replacement port wing on the Hurricane in the lower photo?
By: DazDaMan - 5th February 2004 at 11:31
I blame the technology! :p
By: Moggy C - 5th February 2004 at 11:11
Daz.
I think you are entitled to “The worst picture posted in 2004” award for that effort. 😉
Moggy
By: DazDaMan - 5th February 2004 at 10:05
The Spitfire Mk1 – apologies for the quality of the pic, it was the only one I could get before the digital camera ran out of juice – and no charger or spare batteries!!
By: Flood - 4th February 2004 at 17:22
Originally posted by Snapper
‘Wet Paint’.
An order, or invitation?;)
Flood.
By: Snapper - 4th February 2004 at 15:10
Recognition.
Typhoons carried one other bit of recognisable marking throughout their career. It was used in addition to whatever AM wanted to apply on the day.
‘Wet Paint’.
By: VoyTech - 4th February 2004 at 14:51
Re: One for RAF historians
Wombat,
now to your other questions which did not seem to attract much attention so far.
Originally posted by Wombat
Why did the RAF alter its roundels so many times in the European theatre during WW II?
I do not think they really CHANGED them so often, it is rather that they had different ones for each aircraft role/size/part of airframe etc.
What was the reason for the change in the design of aircraft identification signs? Some were light grey, others white, some thick lettering, others thin, some included numerals, most comprised three letters.
This is much more complicated. To beging with, I would suggest getting hold of a book published last year on the RAF and allied codes. The title is too long to remember (even for my memory, Mark V), the authors are Andy Thomas and Vic Flintham.
V.
PS> JDK, glad you didn’t withdraw that far…
By: VoyTech - 4th February 2004 at 14:41
Re: Re: First Forum post
Originally posted by Wombat
I’m glad I started this thread, because nobody has been able to answer my original question – what was the reason for the black and white scheme?
Originally posted by Mark12
“Repeat please”.
Originally posted by VoyTech
this was a Fighter Command quick recognition marking (similar in concept to the later Sky band and spinner, but much larger…).V.
By: JDK - 4th February 2004 at 10:22
Ah, THAT’S the question!
As Daz says, to help those on the ground tell ours from theirs.
Like most pre-war ideas, it was stupid, but that’s what they did.
Given the lamentible recognition training of the period it was, on paper, a good idea, but like ‘All cats are grey in the dark’ – all a/c are ‘shadow’ coloured at a distance, so it was only of use close to. It was clearly the idea of a desk warror, as it assumes a/c are always flying neatly upright.
Given that the RN shot at everything, including their own fleet fighters, that the Army generally shot at everything with smaller guns than the Navy, and that everyone’s allies were rather poor at shooting at everything ‘different’ anyway, it’s a wonder anyone came back. I’m talking Battle of France period here. From June 1940 onwards, the forces got a lot more smart about how to fight, and ideas were changed, the recognition from ground was better (thanks in part to the Observer Corps) and lots of pre-war concepts were quietly discarded.
No refs, but that’s my understanding from my reading.
Cheers
By: DazDaMan - 4th February 2004 at 10:11
(Daz hops onto the bandwagon rather late!)
Visibility, surely? To stop our side gunning down our chaps by accident?
Of course, after France, it was realised it was a damn fool idea because a formation of Hurricanes, viewed from below by a prospective target, would look something like a flying chessboard, and not exactly great for stalking the enemy!
(just remembered I have a couple of black/white belly Spitfire models at home – one of them with the ailerons painted in the opposite colours – will try for some photos)
By: Wombat - 4th February 2004 at 10:08
I’m glad I started this thread, because nobody has been able to answer my original question – what was the reason for the black and white scheme? Surely some reference exists to it in documents or books on somebody’s library shelf. Unfortunately, not mine.
Wombat
By: VoyTech - 3rd February 2004 at 15:06
Now, would they all be black/white scheme, long overdue for a new paint job, or just misunderstood black/Sky,with half of the fuselage painted also?
V.
By: VoyTech - 3rd February 2004 at 15:04
And a third.
By: VoyTech - 3rd February 2004 at 15:03
It worked! OK, another one, same place, same time.
By: VoyTech - 3rd February 2004 at 15:03
Ooops…
Maybe this time
By: Mark12 - 3rd February 2004 at 15:01
“Repeat please”. 🙂
By: VoyTech - 3rd February 2004 at 14:59
These were easy ones. How about this photo, taken at Tern Hill in March 1941? (Not sure it’ll work the first time, I am new to posting pictures here.)
Sign In
January 31, 2004 at 5:56 am