I’m no expert on the Fury, even if it is a Hawker product, but from what I see in photos and diagrams, the camouflage pattern isn’t quite right for the aircraft.
I am probably wrong but weren’t the Furies painted in Sand / Stone / azure camouflage, not like this one in sand / light green / pale blue (almost a Soviet scheme) with royal blue spinner? No markings are visible, just the national insignia.
Hi David;
Not a flame, just my curiosity. I’ve read that the “Baghdad Furies” were in sand and stone, but I’ve also read from many sources that Egyptian Spitfires were sand and stone as well, but Egyptian sources mention them as being in Ocean Gray/Dark Green uppers, with medium sea gray undersurfaces. Given the high contrast of upper surface colors in B&W photos of the Spitfires, I would tend to think the Egyptian sources were correct (and would also explain the confusion between British, Israeli and Egyptian Spits in the ’48 War.) This would also call into question the “Baghdad Furies” as well, though the contrast between upper surface colors is not as pronounced in period B&W photos, I can’t help but wonder if there is a factual basis for the assertion that the upper surface colors were sand and stone, or if it is just an assumption made because the aircraft were shipped to the Middle East.
I do agree that just because someone somewhere painted an aircraft a certain color at some point doesn’t automatically follow that they knew what they were doing (and I doubt that paint is 40 years old) and those colors may well BE wrong, I am more interested in the basis for the assertion that the originals would be sand and stone, as opposed to gray/green or brown/green (as cited, the British didn’t always deliver aircraft in an “appropriate” color scheme…..)
Paul
Sign In
