Apologies if this is a dumb question I’m a real beginner at all things aircraft.
Can anyone explain why they would paint the serial number of this aircraft on the tail rather than the fuselage?
I have searched high and low and looked at a lot of images but have never seen this done anywhere else. I considered that perhaps it was in the process of being painted when the photo was taken but wondered if there was a more intelligent explanation.
Thanks.
By: Mark12 - 7th June 2018 at 07:26
Rare but not unique…AB910.
Mark
By: Kelt - 5th June 2018 at 22:05
Thanks Mark that’s an interesting story and an interesting aircraft, it’s certainly moved around quite a bit.
When I posted here I was half expecting someone to say “you idiot, they used to do that all the time because…” but apparently not. Whether I can use it as evidence of my not being an idiot in general society is debatable but I appreciate all the answers and I guess I’ll just go with “rare” but not unique as the reason they put it up on the tail.
Oddly the direction of the camouflage is fairly rare too sweeping backwards on the port side rather than starboard, perhaps she was in the hands of a trainee painter or they painted her upside down 🙂
By: Mark12 - 5th June 2018 at 06:33
As far back as 1957 and RAF West Kirby an anonymous silver Mk V Spitfire defied identification. Seen here at RAF Bridgnorth in 1962 it was to acquire several ‘Maintenance’ serials and several speculated RAF identities. It was not until the rear fuselage was gently abraded during restoration that the true identity was revealed..Westlands built AR614. Unusual, the original RAF serial had been applied in small characters high on the tail band…rare but not unique.
Mark
By: Kelt - 1st June 2018 at 13:10
Thank you for your replies and for noting the link to the image, links don’t show up very clearly here I should have made it clearer sorry.
The aircraft in question was produced/delivered on 10-10-41. The image (which is copyright so I didn’t post it here, although I’ve had permission to use it elsewhere I didn’t want to take liberties was taken during its time with 122 Squadron in 1943.
It’s history is:
9MU 10-10-41 CRD VA 31-12-41 for Cv Seafire Accident Code 1 on ferry flight 17-11-41 (Lt JM Bruen) 778S Arbroath 11-41 to 3-42 retd RAF 45MU 26-3-42 165S 8-6-42 FAAC 25-8-42 ros 93S 1-10-42 312S 31-12-42 132S 15-4-43 122S 21-5-43 234S 15-8-43 345S 3-4-44 53OTU 11-8-44 Gosport Ftr Circus 30-9-44 Tyre burst on take-off swung and tipped up Hibaldstow 13-4-45 SOC major repair 28-5-45
So would the hiding of the serial number still be a reasonable assumption? I have another image of the aircraft from 1942 whilst it was with 165 squadron and it has the Sky band and the serial is in black over the band. That image is in “Classic Warbirds No.7” Pg.15. I am not sure of the copyright on that particular image so I won’t post it here either.
By: Graham Boak - 1st June 2018 at 12:50
The Sky (not white, but sometimes Sky Blue, at least initially) band and spinner were introduced after the Battle of Britain, so some time later than this habit.
By: DaveF68 - 1st June 2018 at 12:08
There is a link to this pic in ‘this aircraft’
By: Mark12 - 1st June 2018 at 08:09
Should there be an image in post # 1?
Mark
By: Creaking Door - 1st June 2018 at 00:51
At a guess I’d say it had something to do with the white fuselage band obscuring the original serial number?
Was this photograph taken around the time that the fuselage bands were introduced? Knowing the military there would be an official document prescribing exactly where the fuselage band was to be painted (but possibly not prescribing what to do with the obliterated serial number)? So, maybe, the painter of the fuselage band painted the serial number on the tail at the same time?
Didn’t later aircraft have the serial number painted over the (white?) fuselage band (in black?) but maybe this was forbidden in the original official document?
Sign In
June 1, 2018 at 12:36 am