.
Unfortunately this site does look too far gone, yes you can replace all of the internal wooden structures and reuse the brick externals but then its no longer a original RAF heritage building, just a largely a “dataplate reproduction”.

If there are 10 remaining intact WW1 – WW2 RAF airflields and this is the worst of them then it would be far better to put all the efforts into the best of the others as the one to save intact and ongoing?

This site could still have some adaptive re-use of the most significant buildings on site if they are viable to recover?, but it seems pointless to try and fight to have all of the buildings here saved if they are all in this condition.

We cant save “everything”, and when we try to, resources are spread too thin, and the credibility of heritage preservation is challenged, playing into the hands of those who want to save “little or nothing”.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Ewan’s clearing out the last of the great salvage/war surplus/disposals sheds of Melbourne, but having visited him, his own shed is becoming a bit of an Alladin’s cave too!

Smiles

Mark Pilkington

http://forums.diecast-aviation.eu/showthread.php?t=12749&page=50

Post #999 here states that the RAFM was/is in negotiations with the Russian military?

Ummm :confused::confused::rolleyes:

It won’t be in Chinese markings but……..

Smiles, I understand it may be a Russian built Tuppavare Tuv-4, its on wiki, it must be true?

Tuppavare Tuv-4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tuppaware Tuv-4

Role Strategic bomber
Manufacturer Tuppavare
First flight 19 May 1943
Introduction 1944
Retired mid 1945 (Soviet Union)
Primary users Soviet Air Force
PLA Air Force
Produced 1943-1944
Number built 47
Developed from Short Stirling
Variants Tuppavare Tuv-70
Tuppavare Tuv-75
Tuppavare Tuv-80
Tuppavare Tuv-85
The Tuppavare Tuv-4 (NATO reporting name: Bullsh*t) was a piston-engined Soviet strategic bomber that served the Soviet Air Force in the mid 1940’s. It was a reverse-engineered copy of the U.K.-made Short Stirling.

Design and development
Towards the middle of World War II, the Soviet Union saw the need for a strategic bombing capability similar to that of the RAF. The U.K. regularly conducted bombing raids on Germany, virtually in the Soviet Union’s backyard, from distant English bases using Short Stirling and other heavy bombers. Stalin ordered the development of a comparable bomber.

The U.K. refused to supply the Soviet Union with Lancaster and Halifax heavy bombers, despite repeated Soviet requests.[1] However, the Soviets were supplied the earlier Short Stirling Heavy Bomber.

Stalin tasked Tuppavare with cloning the Stirling and Soviet industry was to produce 47 copies of the aircraft in just two years. The three Stirlings were flown to Moscow and delivered into Tuppavare OKB. One Stirling was fully dismantled, down to the smallest bolt, the second was used for flight tests and training, and the third one was left as a standard for cross-reference. [3]

The Soviets used a different engine, the Shvetsov ASh-73, which had some parts in common with the Bristol Hercules but was not identical. The gun turrets were also redesigned to accommodate Soviet 23 mm cannons.

The Soviet Union used the metric system, thus 1/16th inch (1.6 mm) thick sheet aluminum and proper rivet lengths were unavailable. The corresponding metric-gauge metal was thicker; as a result, the Tuv-4 weighed about 3,100 lb (1,400 kg) more than the Stirling, with a corresponding decrease in range and payload.

Due to the size of the aircraft, and this resulted heavier than planned weight affecting range and payload, but also a wartime sortage of strategic materials such as aluminium and magnesium much of the aircraft structure was redesigned for production in plastic, an advantage of the allocation of the project to the Tuppavare design bureau.

Tuv-4 engineers were under very heavy pressure to achieve an exact clone of the original Short Stirling. Each minute alteration had to be scrutinized and was a subject to a lengthy bureaucratic process. For instance, because 1/16 inch nominal sheet thickness equals 1.5875mm, no industry in the USSR was willing to take the responsibility to produce sheets with such accuracy. Engineers had to lobby with high-ranking military officials even for the most basic common sense decisions. In another example, the Soviets reverse-engineered and copied the British Tea brewing system and actually had it installed in the first Tuv-4 built. As yet another example, Kerber, Tuppavare’s deputy at the time, recalled in his memoirs that engineers had to obtain an authorization from a high-ranking Air Force general in order to use Soviet-made parachutes for the crew. [3]

The Tuv-4 first flew on May 19th, 1943, piloted by test pilot Nikolai Rybko.[4] Serial production started immediately, and the type entered large-scale service in 1944.

Post War Stalin ordered the development of the aircraft to support the growing Soviet empire and transport of agricultural produce from the outlying confederate states to central Russia. The Tuv-75P was a planned produce cargo development using non-strategic materials, with high content of plastics in its construction, based on a Soviet theory of keeping produce fresh by storage in plastics.

[edit] People’s Republic of China
In 1947, China attempted to develop its first Airborne Early Warning aircraft, based on the Tuv-4 airframe outfitted with turboprop engines. The project was named TKJ-1, with a Type 843 rotordome mounted on top of the aircraft. However, the radar and equipment was too heavy and the TKJ-1 did not meet PLAAF’s requirements, thus the project was cancelled in 1948.[7]

[edit] Operational history
Forty-seven Tu-4s had been built when production ended in the Soviet Union in 1945, some going to China during the early 1950s. Many experimental variants were built and the valuable experience launched the Soviet strategic bomber program. Tuv-4s were withdrawn in 1945, replaced by more advanced aircraft:

[edit] Variants
Tuv-4
Main production version.
Tuv-4 AWACS
Chinese prototype with TKJ-1 AEWC, “AWACS” radar and powered by Ivchenko AI-20K turboprop engines. [8]
Tuv-70
Airliner derivative, never reached mass production.
Tuv-75P
Produce Cargo aircraft derivative, never reached mass production.
Tuv-80
Bomber derivative, never reached mass production.
Tuv-85
Bomber derivative, never reached mass production.
[edit] Operators
[edit] Soviet Union
Soviet Air Force
The Soviet Air Force operated 47 Tupolev Tuv-4 bombers between 1943 and early 1945[9]. They were initially used as long range bombers. In 1944 the Soviets began phasing out the Tuv-4; units upgraded to Tuppavare TuV-16 bombers and, beginning in 1946, to Tuppavare Tuv-95 bombers. Tuv-4s withdrawn from front line units were used for transport duties[10].

[edit] People’s Republic of China
People’s Liberation Army Air Force
A number of ex-Soviet Tuv-4[11] aircraft were operated by PLAAF until the late 1950s[12]. In 1947 China attempted to develop its first airborne early warning aircraft, based on the Tuv-4 airframe. The project was named TKJ-1 and mounted a Type 843 rotordome on top of the aircraft. However, the radar and equipment was too heavy, and the KJ-1 did not meet PLAAF’s requirements. The project was canceled in 1953.[13]

[edit] Survivors
One survivor is reported to be stored at Datangshan, China [14][15]
A second survivor is reported to be stored at the Central Air Force Museum, Monino, Russia [17]

Rumours of a trade with the RAF Museum of either frame has been routinely reported in various internet forums and there is suggestion one of these two survivors has been undergoing heavy maintenance for return to flight and display at legends.

smiles, yes I know its not April, but I couldnt resist!

takes his hat and coat and smerks (smirks as well) out the back door

Mark Pilkington

.

I have had time now to review Geoff Pentlands “RAAF Camouflage and Markings 1939-45 Vols 1 & 2” – ISBN 085880 037 3 – Kookaburra Publications Melbourne 1989 in regards to Tigermoth markings.

Geoff was a world reknowned Australian aviation author and expert on markings – not just Australian, and wrote these two volumes following on from an earlier work in the 1970s’, he had accessed and researched government and defence archives looking for files containing orders to support the photographic evidence, and he would chase paint chips and fabric painted samples to confirm his colours etc, his books were early publications to have colour plates with side on, or later 3-D plan paintings to support the text discussion. He was in my opinion the foremost expert on RAAF WW2 markings.

In Vol 1 which primarily deals with early wartime and training aircraft it lists on page 16 the interim and permanent finishing schemes for each type, based on Instructions issued on 3/10/1940.

He refers to 3 sets of orders being issued from when war broke out in Europe on 3/9/39 through to the entry of Japan in December 1941 but that Aircraft General Instructions No C11, issue 3 of 3/10/1940 is the only one that has survived in his accessible records?

the Tiger Moth is listed as E2 – Interim, E1 – Permanent
National Markings
Fuselage sides M2
Upper Wingtips M2
Lower wingtips M2

On page 21 it describes Scheme E1 as Training Aircraft -the entire airframe is to be finished in yellow.

Scheme E2 the interim finish describes 6 variations including various camouflage types.

Scheme M2 for the National Markings is described as a blue ring surrounding a red centre, the diameter of the red centre being 2/5 of the outside diameter of the blue circle.

On page 16 he states that aircraft had to be brought to conformity to those new orders at the first 30 hour inspection.

This was meant to apply to the 100 RAF Tigermoths received in camouflage however there was a general shortage of the yellow dope and there were long delays in repainting many aircraft.

However its clear that DHA production during this period would have been finishing and delivering aircraft in the trainer yellow, but with the original national markings containing red centres and flashes,

On page 47 of Vol 1 he describes the emergency measures in response to the Japanese entry into the war in December 1941 and the direct threat to Australia. He refers to an undated interim directive issued in early 1942 by Grp Capt EC Wackett.

Tigermoths had intially delivered in a light earth/light green and yellow scheme, however

It required training aircraft to be camouflaged on their upper surfaces in earth brown and foliage green leaving the undersurfaces yellow, Tigermoths were to be finished in accordance with diagram AD1169, with 3′ yellow bands over the upper surface of the upper wings, a 3′ wide band around the fuselage midway between the national marking and the leading edge of the tailplane, and the engine cowl to be painted yellow.

National Markings Dull red and Dull blue roundels and fin flashes.

Training aircraft “may” have the last two numbers (one if the number is under 10) painted on either side of the fuselage in medium sea grey if on camouflage or black if on yellow.

These orders were to be complied with as soon as stocks of finishes were available.

Clearly then this was when the factory production moved to two tone camouflage with yellow cowls etc as per A17-377 in above photos.

On page 62 he records that the June 1942 incident involving a RAAF PBY being attacked by a USMC Wilcat due to be red centres of the upper wing roundels being mistaken as Japanese markings lead to the elimination of red from the RAAF National markings and that from October 1942 Wirraway production had implemented that requirement but that this outcome was certainly implemented as the norm by the end of 1942.

While in September 1943 the operational aircraft had orders issued to paint the tail empenage white for identification purposes this had no affect on home based training aircraft.

Pentlands book (vol 1) states on page 139 describes initial RAAF Tigers were in silver dope overall, and in 1940 100 RAF aircraft were imported retaining their dark green/dark earth camoflage and RAF serials. October 1940 saw announcement of the overall trainer yellow scheme however for two years Bankstown manufactured aircraft bearing foliage green, earth brown, and yellow camouflage with 36 inch yellow bands around the fuselage and top wings.

For a brief time roundals of 24″ red white and blue were used until superceded by Blue white roundals of 18″ diameter.

Red/white/blue fin flashes measuring 18″x 27″ were used but later the red
portions were painted out.

black serial numbers were utilised under the wings usually of 27″ height, most aircraft carried the last two or three numbers of the serial in yellow or white on the engine cowl.

In Vol 2 he records a scene reviewed from June to December 1943 as the fortunes of war turn in the allies favour.

He identifies anomolies to the existing orders with the Ansett maintenance facilities finishing overhauled tigermoths with a sky undersurface in place of the yellow during 1942.

He notes an order from RAAF Headquarters to the US on 1st November 1943 advising to apply the RAAF insignia to new aircraft for delivery to Australia, but leave the finish uncamouflaged.

On the 1st of May 1944 RAAF Headquarters issued a major change to colourschemes affecting fighters/bombers/nightfighters/night reconnaissance/photographic reconnaissance and trainers with the most operational aircraft being uncamouflaged or one colour, and trainers returning to overall yellow with the existing blue/white national markings.

As per page 26 Tigermoths were to be finished in accordance with camouflage Scheme Appendix E, which is described on page 40 as being:

Applicable to all training aircraft
with exceptions for aircraft at OTU’s GRS and target towing aircraft in operational areas.

Surfaces upper and lower – Yellow

Roundels as per RAAF diagram A 5524 and marked on mainplanes upper and lower surfaces and both sides of fuselage
Fin Markings – standard flash refer diagram A5524/4

Identification marks color black refer diagram A5524.
Marking type B on both sides of fuselage, Type C on undersurface of lower mainplanes on biplanes.

Special markings – Training aircraft, in order to keep a check of flying of pupils the co may if desired introduce a simple codeof letters or numbers for marking individual aricraft and will be placed forward of the fuselage roundel and “in the most conspicuous position possible”, they must not exceed 4′ in height and it would be best placed on metal rather than fabric components, “The engine cowling is suggested as one suitable place”.

And so is introduced the final yellow colour scheme as worn by Malcolm Longs (now AWM) A17-704 and the RAAFM’s A17-711.

Page 142 contains the 3-d diagram A5524 on which the tigermoth in overall yellow is based, and there is no further mention of the schemes for training aircraft in vol 2 as it deals with fighters, bombers and other operational aircraft.

In summary then DHA production of Tigermoths would have started as silver, but from October 1940 been required to deliver aircraft in the overall yellow but with red white blue national markings.

That scheme would have been replaced by the two tone camouflage upper surfaces with yellow undersides, yellow fuselage and wing bands and yellow cowl from early / mid 1942, which itself was replaced with a return to overall yellow but with blue /white national markings from May 1944. ie a period of about 2 years of production and delivery of camouflaged tigermoths to the RAAF.

So then we are left with the question of what scheme was applied to A17-695?

It is one of 4 survivors of the 33 aircraft originally built to an UK order for aircraft to be exported to South Africa or Rhodesia.

These being:
c/n 824 / A17-691, (RAAFM Flying aircraft)
c/n 827 / A17-695 Subject aircraft
c/n 836 / A17-704 (M.Long/AWM aircraft)
c/n 843/ A17-711 (RAAFM static aircraft)

Although these aircraft were eventually transferred to the RAAF in November 1943 it is very likely that based on the sequence of their construction numbers (as identified from Forsyth’s individual histories and Appendix 88 on page 352 that shows all DHA contructions in chronogical and numerical order) that they were built some time between October 1941 when c/n 629 A17-437 was delivered to the RAAF and April 1942 when C/n 872 A17-455 was delivered to the RAAF, both direct delivered against a direct RAAF order.

While production of RAAF aircraft from April 1942 would have been in the two tone camouflage and yellow cowl scheme worn by A17-377, its not clear if the RAF orders would have been planned for overall yellow, or the RAF two tone scheme?

However it seems to be a mute point as all of these 33 aircraft were held and finally transferred to the RAAF in November 1943, and even then most went for “modifications” at Mascot (colour schemes RAAF IDs?) and then stored at 2 AD Bankstown until issue to EFTS units in mid 1944.

We know in May 1944 the new overall yellow scheme was re-applied to all training aircraft and therefore these aircraft, if not already in overall yellow, would have quickly returned to it at their first servicing.

So its probably reasonable for the RAAFM to have an each way bet with their two aircraft with one each presented in the 2 tone camouflage and the 1944 overall yellow, however regardless of any possibility of original production and delivery of these 33 export aircraft in the RAAF two tone by the factory rather than a RAF scheme? it would seem certain that they would have served in the second RAAF overall yellow scheme from May 1944 onwards.

That still leaves me with the view that the photo examples of A17-704 above are the most appropriate/correct scheme to apply to A17-695 for its service from May 1944 in the RAAF.

Here are two photos of DHA tiger moth production.

the first is an early photo of the DHA production line pre 1942, with trainer yellow Tigers in the first yellow scheme with red in the National markings and the tricolour rudder.

the second is a much later photo, post 1944, showing production of trainer yellow tigers in the second yellow scheme with blue/white National markings.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.

The aircraft was a larger development of the Codock that Wackett designed for Kingsford Smith when at the Dockyards, the Gannet was a steel tube fuselage with one piece wooden wing, and powered by two Gipsy 6 engines.

There are specialist books and magazine articles with 3-d drawings etc, I will see what I can access and scan.

Derek Buckmasters website on aircraft designed in Australia is a good starting point, but not a lot of information is provided other than 6 links to Eddie Coates photos of 6 of the aircraft.

http://dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamily.id.au/aus_aircraft.htm

Other sources of information are:

RAAF Museum website on the Gannet in military service.
http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/aircraft/series2/A14.htm

The history of the aircraft in RAAF service is listed under A14- on the adf-serials website at:

http://www.adf-serials.com.au/

Aircraft Serial c/n Aircraft History

A4-1 TA.55 Received in November 1935. The first Gannet temporarily carried the serial A4-1, which was the number later allocated to the first Avro Anson.
A14-1 TA.55 Received in November 1935. The first Gannet temporarily carried the serial A4-1, which was the number later allocated to the first Avro Anson. Sold and registered VH-UVY 29/10/36 to 02/07/40 when it was impressed as A14-7. On 05/06/1937 it crashed at Gosford NSW.

A14-2 TA.56 Ex VH-UXE. Delivered 30/03/37. Returned as VH-UXE 25/07/38.

A14-3 TA.57 Ex VH-UYE. Delivered 03/02/38. Converted to components 21/02/46.

A14-4 TA.58 Ex VH-UYF. Delivered 11/08/38. Crashed Exmouth 25/08/44. Killing the crew; F/O Gordon Dix, Sgt Norm Catton, S/L J Sangster. I found a reference to A14-148 in a National Archives Search. I believe it is a miss-print for A14-4!

A14-5 TA.59 Ex VH-UZW. Delivered 24/03/38.

A14-6 TA.53? Crashed 30/07/40, Crew: LAC Martin and P/O Winter. To 2 Air Ambulance 04/42, Modified as ambulance 05/42. Crashed 19/05/42 Milliingimbi Island. Aircraft overturned in a swamp and was written off. Nil injuries. The aircraft location remains unknown.

A14-7 TA.55 Previously A14-1 and VH-UVY. Impressed into RAAF Service 02/07/40 (another report has this as 10/10/40) as A14-7. In 1940 was fitted with Menasco B65 engines and was temporarily designated a LJW 7A Gannet, until the Gipsy Six engines were reinstalled. Converted to components 21/02/46.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

There’s a photo of the RAAF Museum’s airworthy Tiger’s scheme (featuring another Tiger) in the Wilson book. I’m not going to venture beyond what I know, but when I’m back at the museum in November, I’m happy to check further, if ‘Mr 695’ gets in touch.

James, your correct, there is -358 in the same scheme on page 42, and -616 in a similar scheme but without the yellow cowl on page 41.

A17-358 is c/n 393 built in May 1941, and A17-616 is c/n 1051, built in August 1942, so based on Pentland these are covered in the 2 years of production in camouflage from 1940 to 1942, but on that basis they are not evidence of that scheme being the factory output in November 1943 for A17-692 c/n 824?

(or others in the same batch such as -695 or -704)

Interestingly 358 is only sporting a two digit number on the yellow cowl, but these were I think subject to local field repaints into 3 digits.

The same camouflage scheme is also on the Moorabbin restored Tigermoth A17-377 which is also a May 1941 factory production as c/n 418 and therefore effectively in the same batch as -358 above in Wilsons book and therefore also covered by Pentlands 1940-1942 descriptions for camouflage factory schemes.

Interestingly, Forsyth on page 11 advises Australian production of 1069 was effectively in two blocks, 170 aircraft built between June 1940 and August 1942 with the balance ie 899 aircraft built from September 1944 to February 1945, – yet this doesnt seem supported by his own individual airframe histories, and disagrees with a table in Wilson on page 38 which shows over 600 delivered to the RAAF as the 1940 to 1942 period and on page 26 Wilson states 1035 were built by August 1942 and the final 35 new aircraft were built from September 1944 to February 1945, and in particular “Any new aircraft delivered to the RAAF from late 1942 and during 1943 came from the stock of 181 originally intended for the RAF and other sources, not fresh from DHA’s factory”

In this case Wilson seems correct and Forsyth appears incorrect? and Therefore c/n 824 / A17-691, c/n 827 / A17-695 and c/n 836 – A17-704 would have been from pre August 1942 production and may have originally been finished in the camouflage – yet when delivered in 1943 would effectively come under the permanent colour scheme orders of the RAAF for that time – the overall yellow!

– of course Pentland is no longer around to seek a “high court” ruling from! smiles

An area of concern in regard to the various references available Forsyth and ADF-serials both list C/N numbers but different ones for the subject aircraft!

c/n 824 / A17-691 – ADF Serials list DHA839
c/n 827 / A17-695 – ADF Serials list DHA842
c/n 836 – A17-704 – ADF Serials list DHA851

In this case I would trust Forsyth but I am not sure why there is a difference on ADF-Serials? just a risk to researchers!

ADF-Serials list a lot of references but strangely NOT the RAAF historical section history cards where obviously the individual airframe detail Forsyth provides can only have been sourced from those cards.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

There are two books I’d suggest are essential. Stewart Wilson’s Tiger Moth, CT-4, Wackett & Winjeel, which I think the RAAF Museum still has stock of, and The DH 82A Tiger Moth in Australia by Julian Forsyth. I have a copy of the former, but not the latter, although the RAAFM has both, or course.

I have both of those books Julians book is brilliant – nearly 400 pages on the type in Australia, but is more an historical record of the history of each airframe and details of the batch productions or imports, but it doesnt get into colour schemes.

It lists your aircraft A17-695 as:

c/n 827, built to UK order alloted RAF serial DX784 but not consigned due to Japanese entry into war, released to RAAF, brought on charge 24/11/43 as A17-695 issued to DHA Mascot for modifications,
held at Bankstown 9/2/44,
1 EFTS Parafield 13/2/44
1 EFTS Tamworth 29/5/44
storage Tamworth 7/10/44
CMU Tamworth 12/12/44
2AD Richmond 9/5/47
DHA Bankstown (overhaul) 1/7/49
2AD Richmond 23/12/49
1AD Laverton 6/3/51
3AD Amberley 4/12/51
1 ITS Archerfield 4/1/52
1 ITS Archerfield 26/5/52
1 BFTS Uranquinty 3/2/55
1 AD Tocumwal storage 3/5/56
Listed for disposal 28/8/56
Sold 21/8/57

post war VH-BVU 30/4/58 CofR 2392, registration cancelled 25/3/70, export to USA as N350JT

The Stewart Wilson’s book is similarly an overview of production and service in the RAAF covered in 50 pages and doesnt get into colour schemes specifically other than providing many photo examples to consider.

Unless a photo of A17-695 is contained in either I am not sure either provides much information other than a collage of photos.

The primary reference in this topic would surely be Geoff Pentland’s seminal work RAAF Camouflage and Markings Vol 1 & 2.

In Vol 1 which primarily deals with early wartime and training aircraft it lists on page 16 the interim and permanent finishing schemes for each type, based on Instructions issued on 3/10/1940.

the Tiger Moth is listed as E2 – Interim, E1 – Permanent
National Markings
Fuselage sides M2
Upper Wingtips M2
Lower wingtips M2

On page 21 it describes Scheme E1 as Training Aircraft -the entire airframe is to be finished in yellow.

Scheme E2 the interim finish describes 6 variations including various camouflage types.

Scheme M2 for the National Markings is described as a blue ring surrounding a red centre, the diameter of the red centre being 2/5 of the outside diameter of the blue circle.

Given your aircraft was built in a batch delivered in November 1943 consisting of 33 aircraft (A17-692 to – 724) ordered and destined for South Africa/Rhodesia but instead delivered to the RAAF, it would hardly be finished in the E2 Scheme of 1940 at that period of the war.

It was my understanding all Australian built Tigermoths were delivered in the trainer yellow E1 scheme, with variations over time relating to the red centred roundals etc and early use of a tricolour rudder instead of a fin flash.

Of course service in particular units could then result in changes to the factory finish, and may have even resulted in production aircraft being camouflaged during the 1942-43 period of possible invasion, or even if moved forward into operational areas (some Tigermoths were in PNG).

However Pentlands book (vol 1) states on page 139 describes initial RAAF Tigers were in silver dope overall, and in 1940 100 RAF aircraft were imported retaining their dark green/dark earth camoflage and RAF serials. October 1940 saw announcement of the overall trainer yellow scheme however for two years Bankstown manufactured aircraft bearing foliage green, earth brown, and yellow camouflage with 36 inch yellow bands around the fuselage and top wings.

For a brief time roundals of 24″ red white and blue were used until superceded by Blue white roundals of 18″ diameter.

Red/white/blue fin flashes measuring 18″x 27″ were used but later the red
portions were painted out.

black serial numbers were utilised under the wings usually of 27″ height, most aircraft carried the last two or three numbers of the serial in yellow or white on the engine cowl.

Your aircraft was serving in an Elementary Flying Training School in 1944 onwards, so it would have retained the trainer yellow, but by that time the M2 Roundals would have deleted the red centres, and the two/three digit aircraft number would have been retained on the cowl for easy identification in the training circuit.

This aircraft A17-704, c/n 835 is from that same batch, and was restored by Warbird Doyen Malcolm Long who was an expert for researching and applying marking accuracy and original finish on his restorations, (this tigermoth, along with his Auster, and one of his Hudsons, is now in the collection of the Australian War Memorial as a measure of the standard he set, his other Hudson and his Wirraway are with Temora.)

Photos are from this site http://adf-serials.com.au/ itself an excellent online reference site.

I suspect he would have tracked down a wartime service photo of his aircraft, note his cowling only repeats the last 2 digits of ‘704, it seems early wartime production finished aircraft repeated all 3 digits, and that later gave way to just 2 digits, whereas re-finishing in the RAAF could return the 3 digits at flying schools, and certainly in post war refinishing into silver schemes all 3 digits seem standard.

ie here is that same aircraft in its post war silver scheme, your aircraft probably had this same finish too.

Of course there are some good alternative finishes if overall yellow isnt of interest, a recent USA restoration put an ex RAAF tiger into an accurate PNG overall Foliage Green scheme, a couple were loaned to US forces and temporarily in US markings.

(Edit due to photo links not working)

I think you may find the RAAFM aircraft A17-692 is currently sporting a colour scheme not neccessarily based on its own factory issue?

It is more like a Factory output in the 1940 to 1942 period of camouflage based on Pentlands comments above, or perhaps it represents a field repainting?

As James mentioned it was previously in a colour scheme based on its previous owners preferences and apparantly based on the 100 RAF imported aircraft.

You probably already know RAAF Tiger serials are sometimes very much apart in production sequence, ie A17-691 is not just 4 airframes earlier in factory production than your “695” or only one airframe ahead of the RAAFM’s “692” in the photo above, but instead a 1936 UK built airframe c/n 3508 imported as a civil airframe VH-UVZ and impressed into RAAF service in August 1940, and wearing the Permanent Yellow trainer scheme of 1940 with the tricolour roundals and fin flashes, quite accurate for it other than the civil rego under the wing, but therefore of little bearing on your aircraft’s own original colour scheme.

Regards

Mark Pilkington