Just in case you’re interested, here in New Zealand there is a V-1 Doodlebug in the Auckland War Memorial Museum, and also at MoTaT there is a replica V-1 that was built during the war by the US military based on captured plans or something. I don’t know if they have any genuine ramp sections but it might be worth an ask.

Trying to be completely unbiased since I have not had the privilege of seeing this series yet, I want to make a couple of points.

I have experience in making documentaries and I can tell you it is not easy. I don’t know the facts of this particular programme’s production but I can suggest that several points raised here could be down to technical issues that were not planned for.

Perhaps more footage was actually taken in Canada but found to be useless due to a myriad of technical issues. They can’t exactly go back and re-shoot when they’re on a tight TV budget and the aircraft is on tight flying hours, can they? The mention of the crewman from Sally B being narrated over could also have been down to an audio fault rather than rudeness, or perhapos a narrator could put the same statement more succinctly to cut it down in time. Perhaps – as I say, I don’t know.

But I do know that anything that can go wrong usually does, and it is usually up to the editor to save the day somehow with what is left of the good footage.

Bare in mind too that TV crews are a large and diverse bunch, most being as uninitiated in aviation history as the next guy. Even if there is an enthusiastic aviation fan driving a production, with so many people contributing to a doco things will be mis-interpreted, omitted or perhaps twisted slightly. These things happen in all productions. It is not like a book where one or two people focus on providing all the contents. Even the end credits won’t list everyone who contributed, they are just the main ones.

Another point, if a documentary omits to say something on a subject that you’ve read or know and think is important, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are deliberately hiding that fact from you. It was probably overlooked by their researchers or trimmed in editing for time and continuity. And the same goes for if you hear something in a documentary you haven’t heard before, it doesn’t necessarily make it untrue. It probably means you’ve just not heard of it!! A case in point:

Flour was used to train bomber crews. RNZAF pilots and crews also trained by dropping bags of flour. I was talking to an ex-WAAF only the other day who had been based at RNZAF Station Harewood, and the Airspeed Oxford pilots from RNZAF Wigram would often raid their station doing mock attacks. She once received a direct hit herself and was covered in flour. So it is certainly not fantasy!

And a Bomber Command medal was struck! I saw one recently, one of the Cambridge airmen brought it to the reunion I ran in November. However it wasn’t struck till within recent years, after a campaign to get it struck. And then, and this is what gauled this Air Bomber, they made them pay for it. Rotten sods. It was jolly expensive too, I think he said 50 pounds or something, in the 1980’s or so. He said most airmen said they could sod off, but he bought one because he felt he deserved it. I can try to find out more if you want. It is only little too.

And John C – don’t you dare bomb Thetford, that place is a Mecca for some of us, that’s where they filmed Dad’s Army from! 🙂

If the two shots were from a film (which is a good theory as this was often the case) perhaps it were a general photo call and the change in lighting and tones is caused by the flash of another press man’s stills camera? Just a theory.

John, I didn’t realise this was an ex-RNZAF example, is this the ex-John Chambers one then? I guess that’s two RNZAF P40’s flying now. Cool.

As I said ages back, I had come across that blue colour before. It’s an interesting one. Looking at a photo of the plane inside in Classic Wings the blue colour is easier to distinguish than in your brighter photos. Cheers.

As I said, you’d have to prepare a larger area if you want to spray it green to cover it all, and it’d take a few coats to cover the white. There is no point painting onto oil residue so time and effort is cut down by restricting the area you have to work on.

Using a stencil is simple in a case like this shield as it has 90 degree corners. The stencil has tape round the edges. You simply line up the corner, press it down and spray. Rip it off and onto the next plane. Quick and easy.

This is just one theory mind you, I’m not ramming it down anyone’s throats and saying I have the solution. Merely backing other ideas suggested here.

Maybe in 1944 they were not so careful in their pride of work. you may be right. I haven’t seen too many patchy paint jobs on RAF aircraft though. The USAAF did seem to overspray patches without due care as you often see patches on their paintwork. I was merely making suggestions to throw into the discussion, that’s all.

You seem to thinkthe Germans knew the shape of every artwork used by the Allies. A shield is a shield. They used plenty themselves pretty much that shape. I don’t think the Germans had the same book Martin does. As Mark12 said, we use hindsight and references to identify the unit badges, the Germans didn’t have that knowledge. I doubt they’d really care much either, I mean if they were as all-knowing as you make out, they could check the aircraft’s serial codes and work out which squadron flew it.

I think your photographic filter theory is an interesting one and I am not dismissing it as quickly as you dismiss every other idea offered.

Just thinking about Scenario 2 here….

Having worked in an Air Force paint shop, I would think I’m fairly right in saying that the squadron emblem background would have been applied using a stencil, probably cut from tin or similar that was used over and over. We had stacks of stencils for various markings that were used each time the same marking came up so you didn’t have to keep marking out with tape or cutting a card stencil every time.

I know they used tin stencils for markings during the war as I’ve seen a photo of a chap spraying a marking onto an RNZAF Catalina using one – we had it in the Paint Shop office as an example because he wore no overalls, no mask, no BA, no gloves! 😮 Thems were the days, just hold the stencil and hope the overspray didn’t splash back on the FS hat!

Now, if a directive came down to wipe out the unit markings for the time being, I think it makes sense that the Aircraft Finisher, or Rigger, or whoever did the painting on the unit, would grab the stencil and spray gun, and simply line it up and spray over in white. If you knew this was temporary and the markings were to be reapplied later probably, it’d be stupid to paint over it in green and later have to mark out your badge’s spot and start from scratch. Also you’d end up with a mess if you painted over the whole thing as the new green won’t colour match to the old, etc. It’s be quicker to prepare the surface of just the logo than a whole area of green too. Remember it’d be a greasy area right there and need prpping. And having the white base still there it gives away no secrets but speeds up the reapplication of the logo later. I’d also imagine that rather than each aircraft’s crew individually did their own plane, it’d be more the case that one or two poor erks were assigned the task to do the whole squadron, so stencilling , spraying and moving on to the next speeds it up no end than hand painting out the detail.

Though I have no idea what the true circumstances are in the photos, I think Mark’s theories are pretty sound, and it seems very logical to me that if a directive was sent down, you’d white out the logo rather than obliterate it.

John, I only get an error page when I click your webshots link