Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Yep, it's interesting alright; It's a Spit LF.Vc; you can see the clipped wingtips. Taking a look in my trusty copy of Morgan and Shacklady's Spitfire the History and looking at the serial that's visible, its either JK530 or JK537 which Steve mentioned as being the most likely, both of which served with the USAAF. Unfortunately I can't add anything more to the odd markings, but to say it looks like it has had rear fuselage skin repair work done, which might explain the patches. Just forward of the Star 'n Bar looks like a portion of roundel. If the squadron codes are to be believed its an aircraft of the 2nd FS, 52nd FG in the Med, possibly Corsica, Sicily or Tunisia.
 
Thanks Wojtek. In the book "Spitfire Camouflage and Markings Pt. 2" it confirms the serial is JK537. It also put the kibosh on modeling this as the aircraft more than likely carried the 2nd F.S. Beagle Squadron insignia, which I had never heard of before.



Geo
 
Here's a link with lots of Spitfires in US service: Forums / USAAF / USN Library / American Spitfires - Axis and Allies Paintworks

There's something really odd about the second pic of the 1st post. The serial seems to be JK53? which would make it a Vc yet it is a Vb*. Weird!

* At first I thought the lack of a stub for the outer cannon bay may have made it one of those rare C winged Spits built in the brief period when they were deleted and the leading edge smoothed over, but then I noticed the B wing 60rnd drum on top of the wing and the under-wing bulge made necessary by the drum.
 
Last edited:
Cheers for that. Seeing as it's a B wing in that pic I guess at least some of that order were built as Vb as ordered, or presumably the entire 506 - 534 (or 506 - 551) block? Interesting.
 
Perhaps the " ordered as Vb but built as Vc" means that the Mk.Vb mainframes were used but the engines and the Vokes filters for Mk.Vc could have been attached to them. At least for a couple of them. So you might be right.
 

Users who are viewing this thread