TA805 – One For The Roundel Police?

JDK you forgot Yak 11 ,s as well. 😀

It’s true, school children don’t know b*gger all about the BoB, but I was pleasantly suprised to hear some under 10’s shout out “IT’S A SPITFIRE!” a year or so ago, whilst I was visiting D*xford (self censored so as not to enraged the moderators), on seeing the mk V in the TFC hangar.

The test is if they can name ANY other single engined W.W.II aircraft. It’s amazing how many Mustangs, P-40s, Hurricanes, Sea Furies, Bearcats etc are also “It’s a SPITFIRE!” to the vast majority of the public. (Same applies in Australia – I’d guess in the US they’re all Mustangs… 🙁 )

Spitfire,
Jumbo Jet,
Concorde,
Everythingelse….

It’s true, school children don’t know b*gger all about the BoB, but I was pleasantly suprised to hear some under 10’s shout out “IT’S A SPITFIRE!” a year or so ago, whilst I was visiting D*xford (self censored so as not to enraged the moderators), on seeing the mk V in the TFC hangar.

Another point worth remembering, is that not every Spitfire was painted perfectly, or even totally accurately, especially during the BoB, when comunication between squadrons (and the high command) was sporadic, to say the least.

It is important, (I think) to get the paint schemes right in this day and age, but it is also worth remembering, that the RAF also uses the “yard broom” for refinishing, when it’s in a hurry!

Roundels on TA805 look ok to me. I don’t think it’s nit picking to pull up operators on matters of authenticity, the OFMC should be ashamed of the roundels on MH434. The contractors who did the the major on the BBMF’s P7350 cocked up the roundels a few years ago but the BBMF have taken steps to put things right.In an age where school children don’t know when the Battle of Britain was fought we need to get it right to educate future generations and to honour that generation that gave so much.

Apparantly Ray said “OK – but I like it that way!” so as far as I was concerned the case was closed 🙂

Just about sums it up really, we can all nick pick, wrong colour, wrong roundels, wrong wheels, wrong exhaust stubs, too many prop blades etc……

At the end of the day, it’s their aircraft and up to them how they deck them out, whether accurate or not 😉

A reader who can fly? Most impressive.

… one of their pilots said to me “What’s all this about our Spitfire’s markings being wrong, we keep reading about it on forums?”.

Wow, a pilot who can read! Posh eh. 😀

Know any smugglers routes?

😀

Hmmm now I know who to come kidnap when or if we ever get our project into the paint booth (looooooooong way away).*insert evil and maniacal laugh/cackle here*

Just say the word….

Hmmm now I know who to come kidnap when or if we ever get our project into the paint booth (looooooooong way away).*insert evil and maniacal laugh/cackle here*

I CAN tell you that the markings on MH434 are about as innacurate as they could get and MKV will be with me on this.

Completely old chap! In fact I was at a hotel dinner in company with OFMC a couple of years ago and one of their pilots said to me “Whats all this about our Spitfire’s markings being wrong, we keep reading about it on forums?”. I explained what the fuss was about and the pilot asked me to point out exactly what the problems were on the aircraft the following day. This I did and he understood what I was getting at and said he would speak to Ray about it. Anyway, this he did and the next day I asked what the respose was, expecting to be asked to come over and make some corrections. Apparantly Ray said “OK – but I like it that way!” so as far as I was concerned the case was closed 🙂

There’s a couple of plan-view pics floating around that show the wing roundels better – they look the same to me.

Thanks for that response Roobarb and everyone else.

It was actually when I was comparing 434’s incorrect roundels that I noticed that the red on the port one looked a tad smaller. I know in the past roundels can at times look odd in photographs, and as Ed & Mark12 says, it maybe the angle and the dihederal and tele-photo lens that makes it look smaller.

I can’t imagine it being wrong, as I know you are pretty darn meticulous when it comes to authenticity, so I guess it’s just an illusion after all. 🙂

So, case closed I think!

Btw, can OFMC be fined for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the Roundel Police? :diablo:

Cheers

Paul

I’ve just been taking another alook at MOTF’s DX Autumm Airshow photo thread.

Now, is it my imagination, or is the red on the Port upper wing roundel of TA805 smaller than the red on the (correct?) Starboard one?

I thought it might possibly be an effect of the light, but having seen another photo from another person taken at roughly the same stage of the sequence, it still looked smaller to me! :confused:

I have looked at some other photos of TA805, but none are plan view, so it’s diffcult to check for an accurate comparison.

This could of course be intentional, as maybe when TA805 originally wore this scheme, it was like this! 😉

Cheers

Paul

Paul,

This may be just ‘dihedral effect’ with a long tele-photo lens. I have seen this before on aircraft that were accurate side to side.

What the photo does show is the difference in respective upper roundel diameters of TA805 against MH434.

MH4343 looks way off from the 56 inch/22.4 inch standard.

Mark

Spitfire wings can create some very odd optical illusions – for example in some pictures, the wing near you can look shorter than the other, and the roundel can appear smaller. In this particular case, the starboard wing is close to perpendicular to the camera, and the port wing is at an angle to it, so the port roundel is slightly distorted by that.

As the one who researched the scheme and supplied all the drawings and measurements to the painter of TA805 I would like to say that it is absolutely spot-on. I will however check it with a rule the next time it’s back from Biggin Hill. I CAN tell you that the markings on MH434 are about as innacurate as they could get and MKV will be with me on this. The centre portion of the top roundel is far too big and the white on the fuselage is also too large. the codes are too close to the roundels and the colour of the lower roundels is different to the others! The paint shop at Cranwell are not to blame as they were not supplied with any drawings or measurements and are now aware of how wrong it actually is. Bear in mind they usually do Jetstreams etc for the Navy and Dominie’s for the RAF so Spits aren’t the norm! They CAN do a good and accurate job, just look at TD248 (also one of “mine”). They were not supplied with the required info for the MH repaint by the person tasked to administer the job from the DX end, and had only a photograph to work with, so we at Roundel Police HQ just have to grimace at it when it sits beside better renditions of camouflage accuracy. I believe an OFMC operative was made aware, but it’s still not been corrected. 🙁