The Lancaster NX665 at Motat in Auckland has worn two identities for decades. The idea behind the Lanc is that it is a memorial to all the NZ’ers who served in Bomber Command, and it wears the code ND752 (AA-O) of 75 (NZ) Sqn RAF on one side, and the other side is PB457 (SR-V) of 101 Sqn RAF, which was an aircraft crewed by some Kiwis. I think that it is a nice idea indeed, as many more NZ’ers served in sqn’s that were regular RAF than in the (NZ) bomber sqns.

The Halifax is just as fitting as a tribute. Are there other aircraft in museums round the world that use this dual identity idea?

I guess one reason for these minor innaccuracies is that the aircraft was restored by regular airmen at No 1 Repair Depot, RNZAF Base Woodbourne, before the museum proper was actually established (est. 1987). Perhaps not quite so much emphasis was put into the paint scheme’s research as would be today by the museum’s team – although the restoration team was lead by Alan Woodley, who later became a stalwart restorer within the museum, and he knew his stuff.

But I guess the chaps at 1RD may have treated it as just another job back in those days.

I would hope that most people who see the real Spitfire in the museum will realise it is real by reading the big sign in front of it which details the history of the machine, and also displays the photo of the original aircraft it represents.

Also I am also reasonably sure that at the bottom of the stand that the replica is mounted on there is a plaque detailing the significance of why it is there and explaining that it is a replica. It has been a long time since I saw the replica, so maybe it is no longer there(?).

So hopefully that will clear that one up.

Thinking about it now however, I wonder if the RNZAF Museum has another photo of the same aircraft because the spinner is painted differently on the museum Spit from the old photo.

Mark12, I used to work with Denis Gibbons, who’s the chap now Warrant Officer i/c RNZAF Museum Restoration. I might drop him a line and suggest the addition of that serial TB625, and see what he says. I’m sure they will at least consider it if some evidence can be produced.

It is interesting that an OU-V scheme was picked. There must have been many other photos of lowback MkXVI’s in 485 (NZ) Sqn that they could have picked a scheme from. I’m sure it was co-incidental that it has the same codes as the Grace Spitfire, which I think was not even flying in 1984 (am I right about that?).

Were they still producing highback Spits when the lowbacks were coming off the production line? TB863 is a highback one, and is clearly later on the serial register.

As for my remark about the two seater, yes the Grace Spitfire is the nicest looking of the two seaters, but in my opinion it would be much nicer if during restoration it had been converted back to a single seater. However having said that, the aircraft has provided a lot of joy to passengers over the years, and no doubt trained a few pilots to convert to type I guess, so yes there are advantages.

But I get ticked off when I read that even now people are converting single-seaters to two seaters. They were never designed to carry passengers and the beautiful lines are ruined by the second canopy and the front canopy being too far forward. Sorry, I guess it is a matter of personal taste.

James, I feel a scheme still can be ‘accurate’ even when it is on a different airframe. Accuracy is merely about being free from error or ommission. Perhaps ‘authentic’ describes (for me anyway) what you’re getting at, the actual scheme of the aircraft wearing it. Not that this really matters, you knew what I meant.

Many warbirds have flown in NZ with ‘borrowed ID’s’, one example is the Avenger that I helped to paint. I know for a fact that the scheme was 100% accurate, because we poured over photos and drawings and more to get it right. ZK-TBM was painted accurately in the scheme of one shot down during the war, despite the fact that the AFC aircraft had never served in the RNZAF so would have had a US Navy serial, which was not displayed at all on the plane.

Tim Wallis’s Corsair was in the same boat, and his P40K. And the Catalina at Ardmore is the same too. There are many, many cases of this in NZ, and I don’t think it matters that it is not wearing the serial code it was issued with when built. The owners have all the paperwork to state which aircraft it is, and the experts will all know the intracacies of the airframe’s past because they’d read the magazines that detail their arrival or rebuild, etc. So who cares if they paint it in a scheme that represents another plane. Especially if it was the scheme of one lost in combat, like ‘Plonky’ the Avenger was, because it is a lasting tribute to the crew who were lost.

The Halifax looks great. Interesting that it carries two schemes, just like the Lancaster in Auckland.

Do the owners intend to change the scheme often? Or was this a one-off repaint?

That French roundel just doesn’t look right on a lovely British bomber. I prefer the other side. However I like the tail on the French side. What are the crosses or X’s all about? Why did they do that? Any reason of just French flare for design?

Is that Mossie going to be a flyer? Or just static? It looks very nice.

Thanks for the comments Mark12. I was in a rush when I scanned the photo from Kevin Well’s book in the university library. I’ll have to take a closer look. Do you mean you can see a bit of the serial and the rest is obscured? Or do you mean it is showing through the newly sprayed coat of paint?

Thinking about it, it is possible that the real identity of the MkXVI will be in Gerard S. Morris’s brilliantly researched book Spitfire: The New Zealand Story”. I’ll try to remember to look it up next time I’m in the library.

The RNZAF Museum would most likely not want to paint TE288 on the aircraft, because they strive to make the scheme an accurate one, even if it is representing a seperate aircraft. For example their Avenger is NZ2504, but it is painted in the colours of NZ2521, which was shot down in the Pacific. There are several examples of these ‘borrowed’ identities to make the plane more accurate in its representation. Another is the Skyhawk that carries the serial of the first one that crashed – it has the accurate NZ code rather than it’s real US Navy serial applied, if you see what I mean.

So if a real identity is discovered for Rongotea, I’d think it more likely that this would be applied rather than the genuine id of a Spit with no wartime connection to NZ or 485 Sqn.

Plus the replica is already serial coded TE288, which may confuse some people more.

You know I have visited that museum hundreds of times and never noticed the serial is missing.

Not only did the Brevet Club’s Spitfire move to RNZAF Wigram in 1985 (after restoration 1984/85 at RNZAF Woodbourne), but the Brevet Club itself has now also moved into the RNZAF Museum.

TE288 is painted to represent an aircraft that flew with No 485 (NZ) Sqn in 1945 while based at Gilze-Rigen (sp?), coded OU-V and nicknamed ‘Rongotea’, which is a placename in NZ. I have a photo of the original somewhere and will try to look it out. I don’t think it served for very long with the squadron as they soon converted onto Tempests and were disbanded.

The first replica was only up a few months when it was outragously firebombed by some hooligan/s, and after the blaze it was a melted wreck.

The RNZAF had put a lot of work into the replica and had to start again on the second one which thankfully still stands at the entrance to Harewood, which is Christchurch International Airport.

Not many people know a third complete replica has been popped out of the same moulds and is being prepared to be mounted in Hamilton, The Royal Aeronautical Society Hamilton Branch are behind this and the team is lead by the legendary aviation pioneer Ossie James.

Below is TE288 out in the sunshine, from the RNZAF Museum website (RNZAF Official).