Spitfires in service

There exists a splendid photograph of a line of 32 Squadron Vampires, taken in the mid 1950’s, and clearly visible on the fin of the aircraft in the foreground, the CO’s machine, is a black ‘?’)” end quote.

Now where is that photo? Any offers?

Re MJ730, to clarify about the markings below is a quote from the book “The CO’S Query”” by Patrick J. Watts……..

Quote from page 52 of the book, “ The story behind MJ730’s allocated code ‘letter’ is fascinating, (and was the inspiration for the title of this book). After the CO had decided to use the aircraft as his personal machine, and before its individual code had been assigned, he had jokingly said to some of his ground crew that there was “… a bit of a question mark …” over which identity letter to give his Spitfire because he belonged to neither ‘A Flight nor ‘B’ Flight. The ground crew took the initiative in the matter and solved their Commanding Officer’s dilemma in a distinctive way. Cpl Tylee and his colleagues decided that a large ‘question mark. placed where the individual code letter would normally have appeared on the fuselage of MJ730, would be most appropriate in view of the CO’s remark. Sqn Ldr Silvester was highly amused by this gesture and the ‘?’ was allowed to stay. From then on MJ730 was referred tc The CO’s Query’. George Silvester’s next Spitfire would also receive the code GZ-? at Ramat David. A mini tradition had started on the Squadron! (Note: When the RAF dropped squadron code letters from fighter aircraft, 32 Squadron continued to paint a ‘query’ on their CO’ s machine. There exists a splendid photograph of a line of 32 Squadron Vampires, taken in the mid 1950’s, and clearly visible on the fin of the aircraft in the foreground, the CO’s machine, is a black ‘?’)” end quote.

Wasn’t it something to do with the CO not belonging to either A or B Flights…? :confused:

Ok guys. Call me mr thicky but can you answer me, what you would probably think, an obvious question?

You say that the CO didn’t belong to A or B flights.The markings on the sides of the WW2 planes…… 2 letters on one side of the roundal tell you the squadron, right? So what does the other letter denote?

Wasn’t it something to do with the CO not belonging to either A or B Flights…? :confused:

That rings a bell Daz, thanks. 🙂

Wasn’t it something to do with the CO not belonging to either A or B Flights…? :confused:

Hi Tony,

The Spitfire is MJ730, a Mk.IX which genuinely served with 32 Sqn in the Italian campaign. Most, if not all RAF fighters in that theatre had red or black spinners as a recognition feature. I believe obvious unit markings, such as the chequerboard markings on the fin, were forbidden in wartime. Many RAF squadrons before the war had adopted thier own colours, hence the colourful Hawker Furies, Bristol Bulldogs etc of the pre-war period. The marking on 32 sqn’s aircraft was the black/white chequer pattern, and these colours re-appeared after the war.

The aircraft marked with a question mark was known as the “CO’s Queery”, and there were atleast two squadrons in the Med/ N Africa theatre who had aircraft bearing a question mark. Frustratingly, I can’t remember why it was done though!

On the cover of ‘Spitfire – The history’ by Morgan and Shacklady it shows a Spitfire with GZ markings of 32 Squadron. But there is no chequered patch on the fin and the spinner is red. This plane is obviously an earlier mark. AND the GZ is after the roundal and not before as in TZ210 (but why the question mark??)

Why the red spinner and when/why did they get the chequered patch.

[ATTACH]165187[/ATTACH]

And thanks Mark12 for your info. ……… so far!

Ant,

32 Squadron were I believe in Green/Grey. It seems that after the demise of TZ210, it donated its top cowling to a 208 Squadron machine whose aircraft we know were Brown/Green.

In my photo you can see that camou matches but the the side cowlings were from different Spitfires duly stencilled on the inside TP385 &TP278.

How this externally matching set of cowlings ended up loose, but together, in the UK is a mystery…for which I am thankful.:)

Mark

Thanks for the explanation Mark, it sounds as though a 208 Sqn scheme would make an interesting choice when a Mk.XVIII next comes up for re-spray. 🙂 Were 208 the only squadron to use the green/brown scheme?

Ant,

32 Squadron were I believe in Green/Grey. It seems that after the demise of TZ210, it donated its top cowling to a 208 Squadron machine whose aircraft we know were Brown/Green.

In my photo you can see that camou matches but the the side cowlings were from different Spitfires duly stencilled on the inside TP385 &TP278.

How this externally matching set of cowlings ended up loose, but together, in the UK is a mystery…for which I am thankful.:)

Mark

Here is a shot from 1973 still in the post war brown and green of Middle East Theatre Livery

Mark

SM845 looks lovely as she is, but does this mean that technically she should be in a green/brown scheme?

Spitfires in service TZ 210

Hi all,
The service history of this aircraft seems vague.
The Spitfire website and “Spitfire the History” both have,

28 Sq, a/c abandoned 9-1-48, 109MU C4R 31-1-50, SOC 14-9-50.

Air Britain has 208Sq, SOC 14-9-50.

No mention of 32Sq, Is the caption on the photograph correct?, any 32Sq
historians out there?.

Regards, JG.

Looking at the airshow photos i have noticed this Spit (thanks Gary Brown)with the same chequered tail. Would this be a squadron marking?

Yes. Same markings and unit as the HFL’s Mk XVIII SM845 – 32 Squadron, post WWII in Palestine and Cyprus.

PeterA

Looking at the airshow photos i have noticed this Spit (thanks Gary Brown)with the same chequered tail. Would this be a squadron marking?
[ATTACH]165122[/ATTACH]

TZ210. I thought that serial sounded familiar.

The top cowling has ended up on surviving Seafire 46 LA564.

As common practice, the serial was stencilled on the underside.

Here is a shot from 1973 still in the post war brown and green of Middle East Theatre Livery

Mark

Here’s a close up of the tail section and serial number to help you identify the Spit.

[ATTACH]165117[/ATTACH]