Thanks guys!
Just having a bit of a closer look at the photo I have of X4009 to work out the camouflage pattern on this bird. It's always good to have a photo and although a rather narrow view, allowing for the yellow circle of the roundel, it does appear that X4009 had the "B" pattern camouflage. I've drawn a red line at the declamation between dark earth and dark green and it appears to run down from behind the cockpit at an angle rearwards through the roundel to the lower fuselage. B Scheme it is. 8)
Also the fin flash stripes appear to be the 7in type that extend to the top of the vertical stabilizer. Standard upper wing roundels of 56in are likely
for this aircraft. Fuselage roundels are the A type. I have no clue as to which of the variations of underside roundels this spitfire should have.
Details of X4009 are:
FF 24-7-40 37MU 28-7-40 234S 19-8-40 shot down by return fire from Do17 SE London F/Lt P C Hughes killed 7-9-40 SOC 30-9-40 FH28.25
So the above means that first flight was 24 July 1940, followed by movement to 37 Maintenance Unit for I guess current mods and then to 234 Squadron on the 19th August 1940. Shot down on the 7th September means an operational career of just less than three weeks following on from three weeks at the M.U.
X4009 should have been produced with sky undersides as it was well past the 11 June change to sky, however the underside roundels were not introduced officially until 11th August 1940 at the time X4009 was at the MU. There was lots of variation at this time. Production standard was 50in for the underside, but it's probable that if X4009 carried underside roundels these may have/would have been added at the MU, so lots of doubt here as to which type if at all.
Another interesting decision to make is the type of radio fitted, as it could either have been HF of VHF. The pic from what I see shows that it has the HF type of antennae (I think I can make out the triangle feature for the wire attachment, but maybe its the angle, however thoughts are welcome on this. I can't see a trace of the wire. I think the HF masts could be used with the VHF radios, so not sure which way to go on this yet The photo is also clear enough to establish that IFF was not fitted, as the aircraft was home defense.
If any have traveled this road before (I'm sure there is a few!) happy to take opinions. 8)
Cheers
Peter