Spitfire 1a at the Imperial War Museum Lambeth

[Max Headroom]

Ok then, the second set of pix from the IWM.

A 1a, I believe that it's late war appearance dates from 1945 and so has never been repainted. Suitably tatty I hope that the museum never sanitizes her as it's a time capsule.

Look at the wing roundel and sky tail band and it's obvious that not much care and attention were paid to a uniform finish, although curiously, the serial looks fresh. The undersides too look as if they have 'lived a bit'.

Thanks for looking

Trevor

[Dave Fleming]

I have an affection for this aircraft as she is an ex-602 Squadron 'plane.

Her 'time capsule' colour scheme does raise some interesting points - the darkness of the Ocean Grey for one, are the yellow marks on the tailplane merely primer, or was she once painted yellow underneath or on her tailplanes (Bearing in mind her use as a trainer); does she have late 1940 Sky under the medium sea grey underside? Any evidence of a black underwing from her service with 602? Any evidence of her former 602 codes? Or was she stripped down and repainted at some point?

She is also probably a film star, having served with 602 at the time they mad 'A Yank in the RAF'

[Seahawk]

Recently I've been musing idly whether the walkway edge lines on Spitfires are on the edge of the bits that can be walked upon or of the bits that can't. It sounds desperately trivial but one needs to decide to place them one side or the other of the great canals representing panel lines on new Airfix kits eg the Seafire F.17. From the last photo above it looks like the latter. Thanks for posting.

[jimbuna]

Nice shots of part of our aeronautical heritage.

[Paul J]

Its a lovely example. Of note are the small wheel well bulges on the upper wing, the strenghtening strips that appeared on several early Spits up to Mk5 I believe. Also a plate or something in the middle of the blue portion of the upper wing roundel, port wing just forward of the main spar/walkway marking? The skin rippling almost has the appearance of a fabric wing covering. And, the openings in the upper wing fro the hanging points. Are these attached anywhere near the undercarriage pivot?

The yellow 'strips' under the tail planes might have something to do with a supporting trestle that may have been left in place a long time?

Edited August 19, 2011 by Paul J

[Kallisti]

Does anyone else think that the 4th photo from the underside looks like someone has been filling and sanding the seam between the two halves of the fuselage?

Edited November 12, 2011 by Kallisti

[ExRAF]

It's a great example to view. I fully support the idea of current flying warbirds being painted in factory fresh schemes, but it's nice to see "the real thing" in terms of chipped, worn and faded paint.

[perdu]

I have always liked this Spit, saw it years ago (in fact its about time I took another trip down to "that London" soon) I like the real paint job too. It's interesting to me that the trestle markings and other stencils are so "not quite in your face" unlike those that always look so obtrusive on model transfer sheets. It would be a really challenging job to get this effect on perhaps a 1/72 or 1/48 model.

lovely pictures thanks

[Martin @ RAM Models]

Lovely pictures of a small piece of history.

It has that used look and certainly in me eyes, is so much more interesting and absorbing to look at than the factory fresh finished airframes.

Why would the paint on the under-fuselage around the wing gull section by worn to bare metal so much ?

[JohnT]

It's interesting to me that the trestle markings and other stencils are so "not quite in your face" unlike those that always look so obtrusive on model transfer sheets. It would be a really challenging job to get this effect on perhaps a 1/72 or 1/48 model.

Agreed

I often think looking at models that the stencils etc look "overcooked". I once went to town with a full stencil sheet in 1/48 on a us jet and once done it looked like it had chicken pox ! After that I rather shy away from heavy use of stenciling prefering to leave them off

thanks for posting the photos by the way

[Edgar]

Why would the paint on the under-fuselage around the wing gull section by worn to bare metal so much ?

Possibly because it had to be dismantled for transport to the museum, and those panels (among others) would have been removed, and possibly none too gently, if the screws had corroded into place. When first displayed, it was sitting on the floor, with u/c down, so yet more work would have been needed to attach the ringbolts(??) to allow it to be hung up. The IWM has a policy of preservation "as is," not restoration.

Shoes (preferred to boots) were permitted on the wingspar, and l/e "D" box, but not on the thinner metal panels aft of that, so the walkway line would have been just forward of the point where the panels were rivetted onto the spar.

Edgar

Edited November 14, 2011 by Edgar

[Martin @ RAM Models]

Many thanks for the suggestions Edgar.