I’m staggered at some of the comments on this thread.

The first three images scream fake to me. The last two are much more convincing, but are probably photoshopped/got- at versions of real photos.
Whatever, I brand them fakes as they are from the same source.

DD

Looks like a model to me.

DD

On the other hand, the French Aeronavale did send Super Etendards, as used by the Argentines, to carry out DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) with RN Sea Harriers …

DD

Come off it fellas – this Spitfire doesn’t need anything doing with it, other than a sympathetic tidy up (fixing the dents from museum abuse and putting the undercarriage legs back on – they are in store at Duxford apparently). It’s the wartime 1943-44 OTU paint.

To use the Yeovilton approach would very possibly result in an un-displayable mess, and a repainted Spitfire. One only has to go a few miles to the science museum to see P9444 or a few miles further to Hendon to see X4590, both of which are contemparary aircraft and have had the treatment suggested.

Once the paint is gone, IT’S GONE! There’s no option to say in 10 years time “Oh, we should have left that Spitfire in its original paint, lets put it back!

Leave it as it is, please!

Couldn’t agree more. What’s with this obsession with tidying everything? The Fw190 and He 162 look like Airfix kits alongside that Spitfire.

DD

WG486 will be repainted in 114Sqn colours :)when she was based out in Cyprus

That’s great news, well done BBMF.

There are plenty of Red/White/Grey and Silver/Yellow Chippies on the UK civil register; these two should stand out from the rest.

DD.

Ahh… DAYGLO!

Love it.

DD

SAAF, but who cares…..they are superb.

I note the that the query came from New Zealand, part of the British Commonwealth, just as South Africa was at the time. They, and the Canadians and Australians for that matter, don’t take kindly to being described as something they are not.

The author of the photo albums was a South African on an SAAF squadron; and I think that it’s important that we don’t forget their contribution and sacrifice.

Perhaps the thread title could be changed, in the interest of accuracy?

DD

I posed the question to Mike Draper, an expert on the history of the Auster in British Army service, this is his reply:

“This has always been a problem. AUS/R-10/174 points to XR237 but the date of 10.9.62 does not tie in with the build date for XR237. The “R” also suggests that the fuselage has undergone major repair. It was not unknown for a Cat.4 aircraft to have its fuselage replaced by a “spare” fuselage and then the original fuselage repaired and placed to “spare” stock. But neither XR237, nor XR238 have ever been reported as Cat.4! Incidentally, Beagle never amended the fuselage serial of a repaired fuselage but did add the “R”. I never saw XR237 close enough to read the cockpit plate. That’s why many websites have guessed the “c/n” sequences.

The final AOP.9 (XR271) was delivered Rrearsby-Middle Wallop 6.4.62 – only XS238 appeared after that (the replacement for XP254 AOP.11) but that emerged in November 1962. XS238 was declared Cat.5(c) in Libya in 1966.

However, TA200 has always been a nightmare. Some say that TA200 was the former WZ667, but this has never been proven.

For information – the histories of XR237 and XR238 are below.

XR237 Awaiting Collection at Rearsby 31.10.61 and issued to 654 LA Sqdn, Hildesheim 21.11.61. To 19 MU 15.9.64. Returned to Rearsby for mods 19.5.65-12.8.65. Released by 19 MU to RAF Odiham 26.5.66 for 38 Group Comms Flt. (Possibly based with RAF Coningsby Stn Flt 1972). SOC 1.6.72. Transferred to Army charge 7.72 for component recovery before being disposed of locally.

XR238 Awaiting Collection at Rearsby 31.10.61 and issued to AAC Centre, Middle Wallop 8.11.61. With Beagle Aircraft Ltd for mods 29.6.64-29.7.64. To 19 MU 15.2.65 for storage. Transferred to RAF stock 1.11.66 and allocated to RAF Odiham 13.1.67 for 38 Group Comms Flt. SOC 1.6.72; returned to Army stock and reduced to components prior to being disposed of locally.

IAPC News (Autumn 1994) illustrates an AOP.9 fuselage that rests in undergrowth at Popham 9.94. Frame plate shows AUS175 17.8.61. “

Bit of a puzzle, isn’t it?

DD