I have been following this thread with some memories of how when the aircraft returned to “Waddo” that brown stuff had to be washed off .
“It is water soluble and will wash off easy” unquote . I think it took more than acouple of washes , and more time down the wash bay than I planned as a Line squadron mechanic . The “waterproof suits” we wore to wash the aircraft were not very pleasant after the water got in !
Happy memories of The Line and 44 (R) Sqdn

Is it true that the stuff baked solid in the California sun and that was why it was so hard to remove? Also suggests why the patch behind the exhausts on Buccaneers was left in the original camo.

Back on track re Vulcans, this is an interesting pic, confirming the desert scheme. Are there any more out there of the desert Vulcan??:confused:

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/vulcan_people/nellis.htm

Fantastic. What are the ‘mission marking’ type things on the nose gear door?

Right you are – profile artwork here

XV160 in three different schemes – http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/S2_XV160_files/0_S2_XV160-2.html

I’m not sure if there was a difference between Mk. I, II & III Seafires in this respect. In 1943, Supermarine made a thorough investigation into the faults of Seafire II/III and their report (written by Jeffrey Quill) states that the placement of the hook under the fuselage was largely to blame for producing a torque which caused the aircraft’s tendency to tip over upon landing. Quill recommended the sting-type hook similar to the one used on US aircraft and as is known, it was later incorporated on Seafire XV.

You’re right, I was labouring under the misapprehension that the Seafire II and III were based on the MkIX Spitfire as opposed to the MkV but a quick check of online sources proves that to be incorrect. (I thought that with a longer nose, the props would be closer to the deck than with the same degree of ‘tip-up’ on a shorter nose, but it seems that all Merlin Seafires had the same dimension in this respect.)

As I said, beware of anecdotal evidence, but as 822 had not shipped out before January 1944, the notorious signal is unlikely to have been before then.

I once read of a Barracuda unit in Ceylon being told to crop the their prop blades. The following day, and after the job had been completed, a further order arrived stating, “For Barracuda read Seafire.”

Oops. 😀

Yes, this was referred to in ‘Barracuda Pilot’ by Dunstan Hadley. I think it was 822 Squadron at Unederpleet. Of course, the poor Barra had a hard enough time getting off the ground without a chunk being sawn off each blade. I think new props had to be ordered…

What is the serial number of the Blackburn Skua that was recently discovered at the bottom of a fjord in Norway…?

(And before anyone answers with L2992 or L2991, they are both accounted for!)

Especially as 2008 see’s the Bucc celebrate 50 years since the first flight by prototype XK486.

We should all start lobbying those airshows then, eh!

I believe the Air Ministry issued a specification early in the war for a bomber with two twin Hispano 20mm cannon turrets, which I believe Boulton Paul had donw a lot of testing with. None of the suggested designs ever came anywhere near fruition, though Bristol built a mock-up, mainly because of the compromises the turrets created – they were so big and heavy that they had to be placed on the c/g meaning most of the bombs had to be carried in the wings.

What was interesting about this project was the the Air Ministry recognised both the inadaquecy of .303in ammunition, and the need for a clear and uninterupted field of fire above and below. One of the turrets was intended to be ventral, a notable ommission from most RAF heavies, to their cost.