Yes, they had the plane and pilot on the news. The nose area is quite crumpled and nose wheel bent a bit. Pilot Paul Jones was interviewed by media afterwards.

I loved his remark, (this may not read as funnily as it was on camera)

Quote:
Jones, calmly, “Basically the weather deteriorated en route to Wanganui and I elected to divert the aircraft to Ohakea. Ohakea said I could land here, and there was a mishap on landing.”
Reporter: “What was the mishap?”
Jones, laughing, “I crashed the plane!”
Media guys all crack up!
Unquote.

Brilliant.

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/spitfiremkilr_1.htm

Could it be in the early scheme as worn by the model in the link above, without any white in the roundal.

Also the link below shows a ‘tail symbol’ similar to that described on the 54 squadron Gladiator.

http://www.rafweb.org/SqnMark054.htm

I would say yes to both those. The camouflage scheme looks similar, though the fuselage roundel is slightly larger, and no wing roundel can be seen present. No serial can be seen either.

The tail emblem looks very similar, definately the shape for the white bit, though in this picture it’s difficult to make out if that rearing horse (or whatever it is) is the detail on the white.

The propellor has three bades, all very bent. I’m no technophile when it comes to Spitfires so haven’t a clue who made the prop but it’s metal, and feathered, and the spinner is the more roundy type, not very pointy. The spinner looks to be red perhaps. Not as dark as the black blades by any means.

Also I’ve had a PM from a higher Spitfire authority who says the markings are not unusual, and are early 1939 54 Sqn markings. He states the RAF Museum’s Mk 1 is in similar markings.

So yes, the picture does not fit the story as told, and the story does not fit the records of any NZ ace. So I now believe it’s total fabricated propaganda, which I had part suspected upon the first reading of it.

I will attempt to scan it next week as there’s now such interest but cannot promise anything because the binding of the volume of magazines may prevent detail being seen.

The main point of the article makes me laugh – it’s going on about how good the British Construction of planes is, and it shows a plane with the wings fallen off, engine fallen off, the wheels fallen off… cracks me up.

Hang on, could this be Alan Deere? He served in 54 Sqn during the Battle, and he shot seven fighters in the BofB but I don’t have specifics of the nature of them yet. Just a thought.

Colin Gray also served in that Squadron. Did they change from/to KL markings during the Battle?

Quite – many early photos from the war make the camo colours look nearly even, and lighter than they should be, and have the odd effect of making the yellow on the A1 roundels seem darker than the blue. It’s very difficult to judge colour with film from this period.

Yes I guess this is possible in this case. Maybe it explains the seemingly one-colour fuselage roundel, no wing roundel and no fin flash. The colous may all be fused together. But the white marking on the tail is also odd. And I can’t find a referenc to a NZ ace fitting this action.

No, and it may be difficult to scan, hence my attempt to describe it instead. Ring any bells Daz? That odd scheme?

Oh, one other clue that makes me wonder ifthe story’s not all BS is behind the plane is an accumulator trolley. It’s on the edge of the field and in the background is a road with cyclists. So possibly the edge of an airfiled. i wonder if the bits were all assembled at an airfield after being picked up off their landing places.

Another od thing, there’s no roundel on top of the wing.

There are three large fire extinguishers carefully placed into the shot too. And the canopy looks odd, you can’t see through it like it’s white. But it does not look tampered with by the printers as that was usually obvious in those old photos.

This is one of the oddest Spitfire photos I’ve seen.