dark light

Unusual Spitfire markings

I have just rediscovered a book in my cupboard that I vaguely recal buying some years ago very cheap in a sale. I haven’t really looked at it at all till now, and I have discovered it is pretty good.

It is called Aces past by Christopher Shores and Patrick Bunce (Salamander Books, 1991).

It is really a paper version of this forum. It is a large book in height and width, with little text, and just loads and loads of beautiful coloured photos of almost every flying warbird that was extant in the UK at the time, plus several in the USA and a smattering of wartime b&W pictures.

It is one of these wartime pictures that has me puzzled. On page 61 there’s a Spitfire Mk IXe of 40 Squadron, SAAF, with the name ‘Evelyn’ painted below its canopy. It also wears a triangle officer’s pennant (for the life of me I can’t recall the rank, I think the triangle one is Sqn Ldr isn’t it??)

It also has a nose-art that looks like a squadron logo on the nose.

The thing that has me puzzled is its code letters. The squadron code WR is normal, but after the roundel are two letters, RR, denoting the individual aircraft code. One of the R’s is above the other, in supercript then subscript form.

Was this the personal markings of the 40 Sqn, SAAF. Commanding Officer? Perhaps he had a double-banger surname? Or did the SAAF have a different system of marking the aircraft’s individual code? I’ve not seen this before.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

20,613

Send private message

By: DazDaMan - 26th January 2005 at 15:48

Daz your picture reference is the same aircraft in post no.5.

I know, that’s why I put it up 😉

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,768

Send private message

By: Mark V - 26th January 2005 at 15:42

Yes – I am saying I have never seen the late (C type as we call them) roundels used in combination with the Dark Green/Dark Earth ‘Temperate Land Scheme’. I would expect fighters that were not UK based to be in the ‘Temperate Land Scheme’ but, as they were based abroad, with Dark Green replaced by Middle Stone.

Daz your picture reference is the same aircraft in post no.5.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

20,613

Send private message

By: DazDaMan - 26th January 2005 at 15:33

Perhaps he means the C-type(?) upper-wing roundels as seen here, third image down.

http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/images/saafspitfirebookreview_2.jpg

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

953

Send private message

By: VoyTech - 26th January 2005 at 15:30

Exactly! That’s the point I am making 🙂

Then why have you referred to late style roundels? :confused:
Temperate Land was used on Spitfires in the Med until late 1943/early 1944, by which time they all (well almost all) had late style roundels.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,768

Send private message

By: Mark V - 26th January 2005 at 15:25

North Africa – yes, Med – not necessarily.

However, by the time this particular Spitfire (PT672 – September 1944) entered service, I would rather suppose it was in standard Day Fighter scheme.

Exactly! That’s the point I am making 🙂

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

953

Send private message

By: VoyTech - 26th January 2005 at 15:23

I thought ‘dark green’ was replaced by ‘middle stone’ on the temperate land scheme in the Med and N Africa (as AB910 mentioned by Mark12)?

North Africa – yes, Med – not necessarily.

However, by the time this particular Spitfire (PT672 – September 1944) entered service, I would rather suppose it was in standard Day Fighter scheme.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,768

Send private message

By: Mark V - 26th January 2005 at 15:14

I thought ‘dark green’ was replaced by ‘middle stone’ on the temperate land scheme in the Med and N Africa (as AB910 mentioned by Mark12)? In other words, once the later (C/C1) roundels had been introduced the ‘temperate land scheme’ was officialy only applicable to Bomber Comand aircraft. Fighter types would be in the ‘Day fighter’ scheme or the ‘desert’ scheme.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

953

Send private message

By: VoyTech - 26th January 2005 at 15:01

This is an accurate scheme with the late roundels/early camouflage colour combination Mark?

I suppose by “early camouflage colour combination” you mean Temperate Land? Considering that was in the Med, what’s wrong in late roundels with this scheme?

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,768

Send private message

By: Mark V - 26th January 2005 at 14:59

But its green and brown???

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,127

Send private message

By: Mark12 - 26th January 2005 at 14:59

The Spitfire in SAAF Service – book

http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/southafricanspitfirebook_1.htm

Thought it might interest…

A damn fine book, especially the first chapter written by a guest writer. 😉

Mark

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,127

Send private message

By: Mark12 - 26th January 2005 at 14:56

This is an accurate scheme with the late roundels/early camouflage colour combination Mark?

MarkV

Well I see it as the Mediterranean/North African scheme with the azure blue undersurface, like currently AB910, but with S.A. Orange national colour in the roundel and fin flash instead of the dull red, as I understand was typical for the period.

Mark

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,768

Send private message

By: Mark V - 26th January 2005 at 14:55

Thanks for the link – will check out the book.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

20,613

Send private message

By: DazDaMan - 26th January 2005 at 14:32

http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/southafricanspitfirebook_1.htm

Thought it might interest…

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,768

Send private message

By: Mark V - 26th January 2005 at 14:25

Even today I still rate this as one of the best schemes on a modern Spitfire for accuracy, interest and application.

This is an accurate scheme with the late roundels/early camouflage colour combination Mark?

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,067

Send private message

By: T J Johansen - 26th January 2005 at 13:34

The photo in the book’s caption intimates it is over Italy in 1944. So I assume it is a photo of the original?

If the photo has the name Evelyn on the side, it would be Barnett’s MA793, wouldn’t it. Or did both men have wives with the same name?

T J

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

4,847

Send private message

By: Dave Homewood - 26th January 2005 at 12:41

Ah, thanks Mark. Now it all makes sense. Sorry if I was a little slow on the uptake there, it is late here.

Cheers mate.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,127

Send private message

By: Mark12 - 26th January 2005 at 12:19

WR-R/R

.

So, any ideas about the code? Why?

DaveH,

WR-R/R the personal code of Lt-Col Robert ‘Bob’ Rogers of 40 Squadron SAAF.

Mark

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

20,613

Send private message

By: DazDaMan - 26th January 2005 at 12:10

Of little or no help, but I’m sure there is a colour profile of this one in the first Spitfire book I ever bought – “Supermarine Spitfire” by Mike Spick(?).

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

4,847

Send private message

By: Dave Homewood - 26th January 2005 at 12:08

Thanks Mark. Yes, that is the scheme I meant.

The photo in the book’s caption intimates it is over Italy in 1944. So I assume it is a photo of the original?

So, any ideas about the code? Why?

I agree it is a very interesting scheme and nice too. Compare those colours to the desert scheme of the Aussie P40 Setter posted recently, quite a contrast. There’s a lot of scope in the Med Theatre for interesting schemes (for warbirds owners and modellers alike)

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,127

Send private message

By: Mark12 - 26th January 2005 at 11:19

MA793/’PT672′

DaveH,

Here is a shot I took at Lanseria in July 1981.

Although I supplied parts for the restoration I was not involved with the paint scheme.

Even today I still rate this as one of the best schemes on a modern Spitfire for accuracy, interest and application.

MikeJ

I do not think the Brazilians are currently flying MA793, although it has flown in Brazil I note, in May 2002.

Mark

1 2 3
Sign in to post a reply