1) Duxford, early May 1998, not an air show day at all. I was at the Museum when Mark Hanna was doing post-overhaul pre-season test flying in MH434. You had to see it to believe it. The aviation authorities and insurance people just don’t allow such things done at air shows any more, at least this side of the world.

2) A typical continental non-warbird air show last August. I was talking to a WWII veteran fighter pilot in his late 80s. All sorts of jets and helicopters were performing, doing lots of noise and attracting little attention from us (other than having to shout to be heard). And then it all went pretty silent and there was a guy doing aerobatics in a Pitts or Yak, or something. Suddenly the old man lost half of his age. That look in his eyes! You could see his heart and soul was up there, in the cockpit, doing every piece of aerobatics himself.

Those were my magic moments, and neither will happen again…

V.

I’m a bit late I’m afraid, but…

Originally posted by topgun regect
And did the Luftwaffe have helicopters in WWII?

Yes, they did. Flettner Kolibri and Focke-Achgelis Drache, both used operationally. Kolibri was the first ship-based helicopter in service.
Not a popular subject across the Atlantic, as it spoils their claim to fame!
V.

Re: Re: First Forum post

Originally posted by Wombat
I’m glad I started this thread, because nobody has been able to answer my original question – what was the reason for the black and white scheme?

Originally posted by Mark12
“Repeat please”.

Originally posted by VoyTech
this was a Fighter Command quick recognition marking (similar in concept to the later Sky band and spinner, but much larger…).

V.

And a third.

Ooops…
Maybe this time

Re: First Forum post

Skylark, your info about Hurricanes applies to other British fighters as well.

Originally posted by Skylarkhere
Apparently, the split White & Black underside was applied to RAF (Hurries) aircraft after the Munich Crisis of August 1938. This covered the complete wing underside meeting at the fuselage centreline. However, the ailerons, tail surface and the remainder of the fuselage were still aluminum.

I think it was common to all fighter types with the bottom of the fuselage either in black/white, or Aluminium schemes. This was probably due to unclear regulations and/or to the amount of work needed to repaint the fuselage undersides. Also, it was typical that ailerons and elevators originally finished in Aluminum were not repainted black or white, because the additional paint would affect the balance of the fabric covered control surfaces.

Originally posted by JDK
marking instructions were issed for ‘Operation Rutter’; an attack on Dieppe, and aircraft painted with the nose stripes. This operation was cancelled. Shortly afterwards, ‘Operation Jubilee’ went ahead, also an attack on Dieppe, and no special instructions for markings were issued; but the ‘Rutter’ instructions never seem to have been countermanded either.

JDK, you are wrong (If I understood correctly the long word with ‘counter…’ at the beginning ;)). There was a Fighter Command signal sent in late June/early July (if my memory serves me) defining the white bands to be applied on noses and tails; then another one a few days later, making it clear to everyone that the white stripes on tail should be across not along the tailplane; then there was a signal saying that these stripes were to be removed. All terminated by mid-July.

More confusing is that some markings were applied for a major wargames excercise (the name of which escapes me at the moment)

I think the exercise was called ‘Yukon’, and it introduced special markings for ‘Mustang aircraft’.

Originally posted by Col. Gibbon
The white stripes are a characteristic of the Dieppe landing.

I would rather say they are “characteristic of the Dieppe landing publications” ;).

Originally posted by Mogggy
Skylark, do you have any detailed info on how applicable the b/w scheme was to RAF fighters in general, and to bombers and other aircraft

It was applied to all Fighter Command aircraft from before the war until the Battle of France. Never applied to non-fighter types as this was a Fighter Command quick recognition marking (similar in concept to the later Sky band and spinner, but much larger…).

V.

Mark,
I am not sure where this discussion is going to right now, so it is my turn to say I do not understand 100%.
Are you saying that the Mk IX manual contains two similar diagrams of the cannon arrangment, of which one shows the two “chimney pot” layout, and the other shows the single “chimney pot” layout?
I think there is only one diagram, and it seems to me we have no doubt now that both layouts were in use, so one of them is not shown in the diagram, anyway.

‘Not drawn because not needed’ is high risk in any manual and unlikely in my view be it V.S. Spifire or Triumph Spitfire for that matter.

I believe every diagram in every manual omits some unimportant items for simple clarity. It is just a question of deciding which components are unimportant.
To make myself clear: I believe the only difference between the single “chimney pot” and the twin “chimney pot” wing a Mk IX is the presence or absence of the second stub. Otherwise they are identical. Therefore, for the diagram in the manual, it is immaterial whether the outer stub is shown or not, as it does not affect the way the cannon is mounted, harmonised, etc. If it did affect these questions, there would have to be two diagrams, two sets of instructions in the manual text, etc.
I think the second “chimney pot” was omitted in the Mk IX manual diagram, because the two wing layouts were in use. If this item was shown, the drawing could confuse armourers when working on those Mk IXs that did not feature the outer stub.
Yes, the Mk XIV manual diagram shows the outer redundant stub, perhaps owing to the fact that there was no other wing layout in this Spitfire variant.