Thanks, Graham, for the further information. I have read that BOAC sought to vary their camouflage scheme from the Air Ministry standard, particularly in respect of the undersides for aircraft involved on the Stockholm run which mostly flew at night. There were apparently arguments both ways and the exchanges between the parties went on for a while. In the end, BOAC got what it wanted.

In respect of the BOAC name, there seems to have been a lack of standardisation: examples of “British Airways”, “British Overseas Airways” and “British Overseas Airways Corporation” were apparently seen.

My initial interest in this general matter related to one particular BOAC Lodestar – G-AGDD. This was delivered to Dorval in bare metal and was camouflaged there before the transatlantic flight. Its sister ship, G-AGDE, was camouflaged in the United States before delivery. Both arrangements gave scope for non-standard colours, I would suggest.

In addition, though there are quite a few photographs of G-AGDD, none that I’ve seen show either the BOAC ‘Speedbird’ logo or its BOAC name (“Loch Losna”) painted on its nose,. Photos of G-AGDE show that it bore both logo and name. That is not to say that G-AGDD carried neither at any time, only that, if it did, I’ve never seen photographic confirmation. You can find drawings of G-AGDD showing both but no photograph – as yet, anyway.

In respect of the Union Flag, I’ve never really thought about size. The CW-20 G-AGDI certainly bore the flag, as did some BOAC Dakotas and other aircraft but not the BOAC Mosquitos, as far as I can see. Did the Air Ministry specify one set size of flag, irrespective of the size of the aircraft to which it was to be applied? Does this explain its ‘omission’ from BOAC Mosquitos?

I can’t recall seeing Union Flags painted on any BOAC aircraft on the Lisbon run. Does anyone know anything different? Was this perhaps due to the fact that the KLM (Dutch-owned) DC-3s operated so much of this service?

Here’s a note I prepared earlier.

I am puzzled over these BOAC Liberator IIIs, the ones with registrations G-AGFN, ‘O, ‘P, ‘R and ‘S.

Peter Moss, in 1975, wrote that they were used on the Lisbon – West Africa service in day camouflage.

The recent Nils Mathisrud book “THE STOCKHOLM RUN”, however, says they were introduced on the Swedish service in October 1943 but, as early as 10 September 1943, BOAC put in a request to the Air Ministry asking that, before the LIberators started on that service, the undersides could be painted black, like the other aircraft used for the Stockholm Run; the Air Ministry had no objections.

G-AGFS only undertook the Stockholm Run once, on 8 October 1943. It is, however, believed to have made several trips to Goteborg, where it was photographed with black undersides. The date that the photo at Goteborg was taken is not stated.

G-AGFR made two return trips to Stockholm – one on 25 October 1943 and the other over three days, 27-29 October 1943.

If you look at the image below and the image posted by longshot in Post # 170, you will see that, when parked at Portela Airport that day, both G-AGFR and G-AGFS had grey undersides, not black. If (and perhaps it’s a big “if”) these two aircraft were painted black on their lower surfaces before being used to fly to Stockholm, then the conclusion must be that the photograph in Lisbon was taken earlier than October 1943.

The third, as yet unidentified, BOAC Lib III at Portela that day also lacked the black undersides.

As mentioned in the preceding post with regard to the earlier Post # 135, there was a photograph of a Pan Am Clipper at Bolama. It was published in late-1941 and I include the caption:

Thanks, ericmunk, for those two images. Can you tell us the name of the publication(s) in which they originally appeared?

I’m not that much surprised that the Portuguese authorities charged a hefty fee for those landing rights, because, as I recall it, Portugal gained financially by its neutrality. After all, Prime Minister Salazar was an academic economist before he moved into government. That said, his decision to remain neutral was essentially for political reasons, not economic.

It is disappointing that no photos from the Sintra airfield in WWII have yet appeared. I guess that, when Portela Airport was constructed, the Portuguese had something of which to be proud. It was also much closer to Lisbon city centre and easier to get to than Sintra was.

Thanks, too, for your contribution, Duggy.

As you may have gathered, i don’t mind putting forward my thoughts even when these are found to be false or unfounded, so let me put another idea forward and see what others make of it. This idea concerns the registration of a BOAC Liberator at Lisbon in the photograph I posted in #144 above and repeat below. It is part of a larger image showing several BOAC aircraft at Lisbon that day.

Here is my logic. It is obviously one of BOAC’s Liberator IIIs as its registration begins “G-AGF..”; BOAC had five such Liberator IIIs; their registrations were:- G-AGFN; G-AGFO; G-AGFP; G-AGFR; and G-AGFS

Two of those were elsewhere on the apron at Portela Airport that day; they were G-AGFR and G-AGFS. That leaves G-AGFN, G-AGFO and G-AGFP, so it must be one of those three.

Looking at the photo below, I would contend that, if it were G-AGFN, then the bottom of the left-hand leg of the painted “N” would just be visible below the left tail fin. Similarly, if it were G-AGFP, the bottom of the downward stroke of the painted “P” would be visible.

Therefore, by a process of elimination, I conclude that it must be G-AGFO, the curve at the bottom left-hand corner of the painted “O” being just hidden by the Lib’s left tail fin.

As before, please show me I’m wrong.

Now this is where it gets more complex (for me, anyway).

The image below shows the double seats on the left of the shot. This means, I think, that those double-seats are on the port side of the aircraft. If they are on the port side, then those seats are facing towards the rear of the aircraft, not towards the nose of the aircraft.

I might be wrong about this (they could have filmed inside different aircraft with different configurations, for example) but, if I’m right, then the seats at the rear were facing forward and the seats at the front were facing the rear of the aircraft. This arrangement is not unknown. I’m sure I’ve seen it on larger aircraft and I seem to recall that BEA’s Airspeed Ambassadors had just such a seating arrangement: a table was placed between passengers where the rearward facing seats met the forward-facing seat. I wasn’t aware that KLM’s DC-3s were configured in this way and, as I said at the beginning of this paragraph, I might be entirely wrong. My brain might be completely befuddled.

Assuming I’m right for the moment, though, and getting back to the number of seats, there are another four rows of seats facing the rear of the plane. This suggests another 12 seats making 24 seats in all, though perhaps the cabin crew took up a seat or two.

I should add that, in the image below, it looks like there are five rows of double-seats, which makes everything even more confusing for me. “Help!”, a tiny voice inside calls out.

As ever, comments and brickbats welcome.

Unfortunately, longshot, the newsreel is fairly dark. You may be able to ‘freeze’ the screen at various points, save the frozen images and then manipulate those images to brighten them a touch. With these images from different bits of the footage, you may then be able to count the seats. [Just let me know if this doesn’t work and I’ll see what I can do from this end].

Another still.

At the end of the newsreel is a clip of DC-3 PH-ASP landing. At one point it flies ‘over’ what appears to be a Ju-52, the registration of which is not too clear but ends in “GV”, I think.

Could this be SABENA’s OO-AGV?

And, if I’ve got this wrong, don’t hesitate to say, I shan’t be at all offended.