Spitfire Ia RAF camo pattern

[SirFrancis]

Hey guys, just completed painting the camo pattern on an Airfix 1/72 Spit Ia. Now I just noticed the box art on an Airfix 1/24 Spit shows the camo pattern reversed from left to right wing. So I found a photo of a Spit which looks like the 1/24 model pattern.

So my question - Is my Airfix kit instruction incorrect or did they apply pattern both ways? Too late if mine is now wrong but I'm curious.

cheers
Francis

 

[Airframes]

There were two patterns, "A Scheme" and "B Scheme", one the reverse, or mirror, of the other.
I haven't got my references to hand, but from memory, the "A Scheme" was applied to aircraft with serial numbers ending in an equal number (example P1234), and the "B Scheme" to those ending in an unequal number (example P1233).
This applied to all day-fighter schemes, including the Hurricane and Defiant (the Gladiator used a variation know as "shadow shading"), so therefore the Airfix instructions should be correct.
However, as with most things, there were some exceptions and, around late 1941 / early 1942, the practice was dropped in favour of just one pattern for all, although again, there were exceptions.

 

[Wurger]

If you are going to replicate the GR-U Spit of the RAF no. 92 Sqn serial N3290 the pic makes all that clear .. see her rudder and the two ones of these Spits behind her.

the pic source: the net.

 

[SirFrancis]

If you are going to replicate the GR-U Spit of the RAF no. 92 Sqn serial N3290 the pic makes all that clear .. see her rudder and the two ones of these Spits behind her.

View attachment 738925
the pic source: the net.

Hey Wojtek, ah ha.... so it is correct. Yes I can see the 'reverse' scheme on the 2nd Spit. Ok I can sleep easy now....Ha.
Francis

 

[SirFrancis]

There were two patterns, "A Scheme" and "B Scheme", one the reverse, or mirror, of the other.
I haven't got my references to hand, but from memory, the "A Scheme" was applied to aircraft with serial numbers ending in an equal number (example P1234), and the "B Scheme" to those ending in an unequal number (example P1233).
This applied to all day-fighter schemes, including the Hurricane and Defiant (the Gladiator used a variation know as "shadow shading"), so therefore the Airfix instructions should be correct.
However, as with most things, there were some exceptions and, around late 1941 / early 1942, the practice was dropped in favour of just one pattern for all, although again, there were exceptions.

Ok now it all makes sense........well kinda coz the reverse scheme policy is a bit odd. I can see why they reverted to single scheme as you say.
Cool thanks

 

[Wurger]

Hey Wojtek, ah ha.... so it is correct. Yes I can see the 'reverse' scheme on the 2nd Spit. Ok I can sleep easy now....Ha.
Francis

 

[Airframes]

The two camouflage patterns were designed to be more effective on the ground, when aircraft were parked on grass airfields, to avoid a "uniform" appearance from the air. With the threat of airfield attacks diminishing after 1940, the decision was made to just use a single pattern, thereby reducing production time - no longer a need to have two patterns applied in the paint shop, which saved a lot of time and also materials.
There was method in the apparent "madness" of two schemes, and the reasons for the change.

 

[SirFrancis]

The two camouflage patterns were designed to be more effective on the ground, when aircraft were parked on grass airfields, to avoid a "uniform" appearance from the air. With the threat of airfield attacks diminishing after 1940, the decision was made to just use a single pattern, thereby reducing production time - no longer a need to have two patterns applied in the paint shop, which saved a lot of time and also materials.
There was method in the apparent "madness" of two schemes, and the reasons for the change.

Ok makes sense.... although parking aircraft in a row might create other repetitive features..... one would think.... but I understand the logic.... cool cheers

 

[Airframes]

Wherever possible, the aircraft were dispersed around the field, in blast pens if available, in order to mimimise damage or loss should a bombing or strafing attack take place.
However, even with this precaution, a number of aircraft with exactly the same pattern of camouflage would be more noticeable, from the air, than those with alternating patterns, even if the latter application only had marginal effect.
It should also be noted that the RAF camouflage patterns had to try to suit two purposes - disruption of shape on the ground, and in the air.
The "wavey" pattern wasn't just something chosen at random, it was to help break-up a recognisable shape against the irregular background of the British countryside, with its varied shapes of fields, hedges, heathland, woods etc, and help to blend in to this background.

Luftwaffe aircraft of the period had a hard-edged "splinter" pattern of camouflage, designed to fulfil the same requirements, originally over Germany itself, and then later northern Europe, where the terrain looks more "regular", with fields that are more straight-edged, rectangular and distinctive, compared to the apparently haphazard appearance of the British terrain.

Whatever the period or region, the main requirements of camouflage still apply - Shape, Shine, Shadow and Silhouette, with at least three of these requirements being fulfilled, at least to an extent, by the correct use of the required colours, and the use of matt paint.
During the filming of the BoB movie in 1968, it was found that the "Sky" undersides on the Spitfires and Hurricanes blended-in to the background, and the aircraft were difficult to spot and track with the cameras, and wouldn't be very clear on the "big screen", hence the reason the aircraft were re-painted in a light blue underneath !

 

[pbehn]

Ok makes sense.... although parking aircraft in a row might create other repetitive features..... one would think.... but I understand the logic.... cool cheers

It is your brain that actually sees things, eyes just collect the light and send signals to the brain. What works in camouflage follows a different logic to conventional norms. It is never helped by showing black and white photos of an airfield when a pilot looking for it is actually at 20,000 ft looking at hundreds of square miles in colour.

 

[SirFrancis]

Wherever possible, the aircraft were dispersed around the field, in blast pens if available, in order to mimimise damage or loss should a bombing or strafing attack take place.
However, even with this precaution, a number of aircraft with exactly the same pattern of camouflage would be more noticeable, from the air, than those with alternating patterns, even if the latter application only had marginal effect.
It should also be noted that the RAF camouflage patterns had to try to suit two purposes - disruption of shape on the ground, and in the air.
The "wavey" pattern wasn't just something chosen at random, it was to help break-up a recognisable shape against the irregular background of the British countryside, with its varied shapes of fields, hedges, heathland, woods etc, and help to blend in to this background.

Luftwaffe aircraft of the period had a hard-edged "splinter" pattern of camouflage, designed to fulfil the same requirements, originally over Germany itself, and then later northern Europe, where the terrain looks more "regular", with fields that are more straight-edged, rectangular and distinctive, compared to the apparently haphazard appearance of the British terrain.

Whatever the period or region, the main requirements of camouflage still apply - Shape, Shine, Shadow and Silhouette, with at least three of these requirements being fulfilled, at least to an extent, by the correct use of the required colours, and the use of matt paint.
During the filming of the BoB movie in 1968, it was found that the "Sky" undersides on the Spitfires and Hurricanes blended-in to the background, and the aircraft were difficult to spot and track with the cameras, and wouldn't be very clear on the "big screen", hence the reason the aircraft were re-painted in a light blue underneath !

Oh wow, I didn't know the BOB aircraft had a different blue underside....huh. I remember they chose cloudy days for filming as opposed to the historic clear skies. for the same purposes of better highlighting the aircraft for the camera and screen. Cool.

 

[Airframes]

Yep. In 1968, the weather in the UK was not good during filming, and the film units had to chase the sun.
Those shots, mainly looking down in the UK were mainly taken against cloud backgrounds and/or when there was a sunny day.
Those shots with clear blue skies were done in the south of France, and from Tablada in Spain. They couldn't do the "looking down" shots there though, as the ground looked nothing like the fields of south east England !
I was very fortunate to see a formation of Spits over Duxford during filming, on my way to a camping holiday in Norfolk, something, at the time, one would never see at an airshow (Duxford was still owned by the MoD at that time, and was closed).

 

[SirFrancis]

Yep. In 1968, the weather in the UK was not good during filming, and the film units had to chase the sun.
Those shots, mainly looking down in the UK were mainly taken against cloud backgrounds and/or when there was a sunny day.
Those shots with clear blue skies were done in the south of France, and from Tablada in Spain. They couldn't do the "looking down" shots there though, as the ground looked nothing like the fields of south east England !
I was very fortunate to see a formation of Spits over Duxford during filming, on my way to a camping holiday in Norfolk, something, at the time, one would never see at an airshow (Duxford was still owned by the MoD at that time, and was closed).

Watching a formation of Spits must have been awesome. Last year at our local airshow (10min from where I live - Wings over Illawarra) I was fortunate to see a single formation of Hudson bomber & Avenger torpedo bomber escorted by Spitfire VIII, P40, P51, F4U Corsair, CAC Boomerang and an Fw190A.... I know.. a bit of an odd formation historically... but I was still one happy chappy!

 

[pbehn]

Oh wow, I didn't know the BOB aircraft had a different blue underside....huh. I remember they chose cloudy days for filming as opposed to the historic clear skies. for the same purposes of better highlighting the aircraft for the camera and screen. Cool.

Cloud did play a part towards the end of the battle over London.

 

[SaparotRob]

I can't remember whether it was a film about Pancho Barnes or The Aviator, or both that brought that up as well. The filming of the movie Wings was greatly affected by clouds or lack of same. I believe the movie Wings was the first to win an Oscar.

 

[Airframes]

When the BoB movie was filmed back in 1968, it was rare to see even one Spitfire in the sky at an air show, so seeing (from memory) five over DX was fantastic !
Today in the UK, we almost take it for granted when we see a formation of ten to fourteen Spits !

 

[SirFrancis]

When the BoB movie was filmed back in 1968, it was rare to see even one Spitfire in the sky at an air show, so seeing (from memory) five over DX was fantastic !
Today in the UK, we almost take it for granted when we see a formation of ten to fourteen Spits !


View attachment 739158

Yeah that's so good. I remember in the film they parked the MkIXs a bit further back because they were clearly the wrong type -4 blade, cannons....but they did a really good job overall.

 

[Airframes]

The production company did a lot of work trying to achieve overall accuracy as far as possible, even down to replacing the earlier (Mk1/II/V ) windscreens on the Spits with the later Mk.IX type, so that all the Spit cockpits would look the same. Some aircraft were re-built from virtually scrap, and others highly modified to look more like Mk1 Spitfires.
For example, the pic below shows a low-back Mk.XVI with clipped wings, before being painted, where the rear fuselage was "built up" and full span wing tips added, together with the earlier rudder. (photo believed to be from the Peter Arnold collection).
Cannon fairings and stubs were removed on all Spits hat had them fitted.

 

[SirFrancis]

The production company did a lot of work trying to achieve overall accuracy as far as possible, even down to replacing the earlier (Mk1/II/V ) windscreens on the Spits with the later Mk.IX type, so that all the Spit cockpits would look the same. Some aircraft were re-built from virtually scrap, and others highly modified to look more like Mk1 Spitfires.
For example, the pic below shows a low-back Mk.XVI with clipped wings, before being painted, where the rear fuselage was "built up" and full span wing tips added, together with the earlier rudder. (photo believed to be from the Peter Arnold collection).
Cannon fairings and stubs were removed on all Spits hat had them fitted.



View attachment 739321

Well, I had no idea.... they really did go to town. It's still the best WW2 aerial film.... Tora Tora and first Midway are also great. Only let down by the model Stuka crash and some of the model 109 explosions. But hey 1969...no CGI.... models and the real deal...and plenty of real deal...

PS I'm also building a Mk22 Spit and will be finishing it in post war silver ... a bit like that MkXVI pic of yours.

 

[special ed]

Model airplane magazines described the model Stuka construction ,three models made, and the flying. Agree that it was the best Stuka combat that could be filmed at the time.