Ungrateful anoraks

Isn’t that also why ‘Blackout blocks’ were used in the British military numbering system?

In fact, they only stopped using them a couple of years ago
(oops – I hope I haven’t just given the game away. Somebody out there might think we actually have got that many aeroplanes 🙂 )

Willow

Military do it all the time (or used to, anyway).
RNAY Fleetlands, 1985; a buzz going around those waiting for the air display at the golf course (oh, alright – and the helipad!). There was a Buccaneer, maybe just wreckage, somewhere in one of the work shops! Others had it marked down in their pads twice, even!
XX898 was written off 17/6/82 on approach to RAF Lossiemouth, and yet someone had marked it down in which ever hanger it was where some Gazelles were under maintenance. Solution (after I’d had a word with a sympathetic guy behind the barrier) was simple: both Gazelle XX393 and XX398 had had their serials ‘adapted‘ with nothing more than black tape to look like XX898 – a Buccaneer registration. When you looked at it, it wasn’t even done very well (squared edges, etc) but it was enough to convince the unsuspecting.
Sympathetic guy has big grin on his face as he explains to the (by now) large crowd of annoyed number tickers how they have been fooled! He was then lynched and hung from a Chinook rotor…

Wasn’t there a similar thing with a Tornado at an IAT Fairford several years ago (eary 90s?) – two aircraft on display with the same serial? I was told that they could only be told apart because they wore different tactical numbers…

Flood.™

A “trick” regularly adopted the Israeli AF thus creating the impression that they had a larger airforce.

Fair enough 🙂

The Gladiator is a fairly simple one anyway. I imagine that MH434 would be much more tricky (oh no, what have I started now 😮 )

Cheers

Willow

Well done Willow. 😉 Just teasing. And I’d not realised the 2308 ‘fact’.
Cheers / Salut

C’mon Willow,
Good start, but that’s a bit short!

I only missed one!
That’s not bad considering I’m supposed to be working!!

Willow

It took me years to realise why N2308 in particular was represented when the Gladiator was in camo.

2308 is 8032 backwards (from L8032 and K8032). Dur!! :rolleyes:

Real number games.

Willow

I spoke to Chris Morris when the RAF camo scheme was applied (1989? 1990?) and he expected the camo to wear through to the silver in a year or two (it didn’t). The repaint into RNAF colours was also a refabric (as you probably know Albert) and I rather like it; but a repaint wouln’t hurt – there’s a few nice schemes avaliable! The upper wing is looking a bit patchy…

However Mrs JDK loves the plane, because of the scheme – could be a bit of a domestic upset if it does change… 🙁 But keeping it flying is No.1 priority. It could be blue with purple spots – it’s still a class machine (Yup, one of my fave OW aircraft. But then…)

Cheers

Gladiator markings

C’mon Willow,
Good start, but that’s a bit short! It was only G-AMRK since going on the civil reg (circa 1960?) and a reg it only wore back in its earliest civil days. However it DID also wear K8032 as L8032 was regarded as a bit ‘late’ for a silver pre-war scheme, so they just changed the first letter of the serial ;). L8032 was the ‘correct’ serial for most of the airframe, but of course lage chunks came from other a/c.

As regards TD248 – Fuselage panels don’t retain the ID – the dataplate does that (this is a one sentance summary of an multi-page multi-thread argument. But it’s good enough a summary for me!)

Cheers / Salut

James,

After getting Shuttleworth to repaint their Tutor, I have now been lobbying them to put the Gladiator back in to a RAF scheme, suggesting 73 Squadron with blue/yellow diamond wing markings. I think they’ve had their fair whack of
‘free repaint’ by a Norwegian film crew and our sole airworthy Gladiator should be displayed in RAF markings!

C’mon Willow,
Good start, but that’s a bit short! It was only G-AMRK since going on the civil reg (circa 1960?) and a reg it only wore back in its earliest civil days. However it DID also wear K8032 as L8032 was regarded as a bit ‘late’ for a silver pre-war scheme, so they just changed the first letter of the serial ;). L8032 was the ‘correct’ serial for most of the airframe, but of course lage chunks came from other a/c.

As regards TD248 – Fuselage panels don’t retain the ID – the dataplate does that (this is a one sentance summary of an multi-page multi-thread argument. But it’s good enough a summary for me!)

Cheers / Salut

Old Warden’s Gladiator is a ‘bonus’ for the reggie spotters.

It certainly is!!

So far it’s been

L8032
RAF Silver scheme

N2308
RAF Camo scheme

423
and
427
Norwegian silver scheme

although it is, of course, and has always been, G-AMRK and that’s the only one that really counts.

A tricky one is Spitfire XVI TD248. It is flying from Duxford as G-OXVI (I think) but the original fuselage panels have been re-assembled as an exhibit at the Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum at Flixton and form a complete fuselage which is also, in theory, TD248 :confused: :confused: :confused:

Willow

Always a wheeze to chalk up two differnt reg no.s on different sides of an a/c that’s on rebuild. gets the number crunchers going everytime!! 😀

Military do it all the time (or used to, anyway).
RNAY Fleetlands, 1985; a buzz going around those waiting for the air display at the golf course (oh, alright – and the helipad!). There was a Buccaneer, maybe just wreckage, somewhere in one of the work shops! Others had it marked down in their pads twice, even!
XX898 was written off 17/6/82 on approach to RAF Lossiemouth, and yet someone had marked it down in which ever hanger it was where some Gazelles were under maintenance. Solution (after I’d had a word with a sympathetic guy behind the barrier) was simple: both Gazelle XX393 and XX398 had had their serials ‘adapted‘ with nothing more than black tape to look like XX898 – a Buccaneer registration. When you looked at it, it wasn’t even done very well (squared edges, etc) but it was enough to convince the unsuspecting.
Sympathetic guy has big grin on his face as he explains to the (by now) large crowd of annoyed number tickers how they have been fooled! He was then lynched and hung from a Chinook rotor…

Wasn’t there a similar thing with a Tornado at an IAT Fairford several years ago (eary 90s?) – two aircraft on display with the same serial? I was told that they could only be told apart because they wore different tactical numbers…

Flood.™

Some Greek folks seem to be celebrating something here in Toronto. Off to a baseball match Thursday. Could that be it?

Old Warden’s Gladiator is a ‘bonus’ for the reggie spotters.

dees 01,
What a wicked thing to do, but hey I do like your style 😀 😀 😀

What goal?

Hi Willow,
Glad I’m not the only one who thinks just taking the numbers is strange! I am quite happy to talk with any aircraft enthusiasts, as some will know, I’ve even been known to bring them over to our hangar!
As long as they don’t think it as ‘a right’ I have no problem.
I can’t stand football but even I got the hump about THAT goal!!
Cheers………………………………..

Always a wheeze to chalk up two differnt reg no.s on different sides of an a/c that’s on rebuild. gets the number crunchers going everytime!! 😀

I’ve had this happen to me. It’s a bit like having a goal disallowed by the (swiss?) referee!! 🙂

Willow

Always a wheeze to chalk up two differnt reg no.s on different sides of an a/c that’s on rebuild. gets the number crunchers going everytime!! 😀

At the risk of incurring some wrath, 😮 what do Reg spotters get out of taking numbers off the side of aircraft? Not wishing to upset anyone, I am genuinely wanting to know.

OK. That’s a sensible question.

Answer…..

Because I enjoy doing it!!

It’s a bit like asking why 22 blokes feel the need to kick a football around for 90minutes. I don’t understand the need for that, but they enjoy it so I’m not going to knock it!!

I do agree that there are some people out there that are ONLY interested in the numbers (I am NOT one of these) and they are difficult to understand even to me as they appear to have no actual interest in aeroplanes. These are the sort of people who leave an airshow before the flying display starts because they’ve already logged everything on the field. However, not all ‘spotters’ are like this and while you have clearly come across some who are, please don’t tar all ‘spotters’ with the same brush as some ‘spotters’ are VERY interested in the history of that pile of parts against the hangar wall!!

Cheers
Willow

P.S. I am not suggesting, of course, that any enthusiast or spotter should be given unlimited access to any hangar or airfield. That decision is quite rightly down to the hangar owner/operator.

As to whether or not the likes of Stephen Grey read these forums I recall a long time ago, in another message board, (Warbirds Worldwide to be precise), I posted about the state of the Gold Pass enclosure and whether it was value for money any longer.
I seem to remember Mr Grey being good enough to post a reply. I even received an email from TFC about it with an offer to be shown around. So, I would say he may well peruse the forums just to see what is going on.

BTW, is the offer for a look around still open? 😉

…I don’t change in phone boxes…

Eh?

…You are obviously in a position to criticise their music when you are a driver and spend your time posting childish messages on this forum…

Ah.
Hmm. Is there anybody here who does change in phone boxes, or can we take that to be a childish message?:eek:

Flood.™