Spitfire Mk XII No 41 squadron with D-Day stripes

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Hi all- just posted this on the airfix box art thread, but felt I should start a new one. As you can see EB-Z and EB-X in the background both have partial ( and narrow looking) underfuselage D-Day stripes.

I'm assuming this is West Malling where they were stationed in June 44 or perhaps Bolt Head?

Its hard to say if there are any wing stripes, the top wing angle of Z in the foregound doesnt seem to show anything, but the underside is impossible to tell.

Z also has the underfuslelage tank, and perhaps X does too

So any more info from the BM Spitfire Boffin massive??

Cheers

Jonners

PS found this pic on the web ages ago, but cant remember where for the life of me.

[AnonymousAA72]

Very interesting Jonners.......

[TheModeller]

Cool picture! Now that has piqued my interest in the new Airfix kit, to be honest the recent sprue shots showing the dropped flaps option (again! Arrrrgghhhh) put me off a little.

Hopefully Airfix have done the decent thing and given us a nice new wing for this kit with a better fit at the roots for the flap inserts, these things have been a bone of contention 'twixt me and Airfix since the 22/24 and late Seafires included them!

Edited July 29, 2010 by TheModeller

[Dave Gibson]

to be honest the recent sprue shots showing the dropped flaps option (again! Arrrrgghhhh) put me off a little.

Do you have a link to these sprue shots?

Cheers,

Dave

[Edgar]

Likeliest place is Lympne, since 41 were there until December, 1944, and had the XIIs until September the same year, which would tie in with the reduced "distinctive markings." On August 12th SHEAF acceded to a request that all wing markings should be removed, with only those on the fuselage remaining. The initial idea was to just let them fade out, but removal became the name of the game.

Edgar

[TheModeller]

Do you have a link to these sprue shots?

Cheers,

Dave

Here you are Dave http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=25479

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Likeliest place is Lympne, since 41 were there until December, 1944, and had the XIIs until September the same year, which would tie in with the reduced "distinctive markings." On August 12th SHEAF acceded to a request that all wing markings should be removed, with only those on the fuselage remaining. The initial idea was to just let them fade out, but removal became the name of the game.

Edgar

Hi Edgar - Lympne would make sense - I have a feeling I found this pic on a site related to the airfield.

Now follow me on this one - with the proviso about old BW photos right at the front!!

Looking at this pic, the camoflage on the fuselage sides looks pretty pristine - certainly it shows no sign of any B&W striping staining. Now when you consider that the BW stripes under the fuselage look very narrow, do ypou think its a possibility that these Spits ONLY had the stripes applied on the under fuselage? Theres a definite demarcation between the sky fuselage band and whatever the colour the last "white" stripe is, and I'm going to guess that what was applied was a final white stripe that was wide enough to cover the lower portion of the sky tail band. But that is just a guess.

So heres my leap of faith.

I'm assuming that the Mk XIIs would have been on home defence/ ADGB duties, rather than activley flying over Normandy. And they are low level anti-intruder interceptors. SO they applied the stripes to the under side only - which is where they would be needed to be seen by AA gunners etc. I appreciate I have no evidience for this mere supposition, but it does seem to have some sense.

Ideas??

Jonners

[Edgar]

This is going to require the odd leap of faith. From June to August, 41 Squadron was used on "Anti-Diver" patrols, in which case I think that it's extremely doubtful (since the patrol area was usually inland) that they ever had the full set (or even any) of stripes; it was acknowledged that the stripes constituted a lot of drag, and consideration of their removal arose as early as 7-7-44. Drag, while flying against the V1s, would definitely be unwelcome.

In September, 41 went back to flying sweeps, and it might have been felt necessary to follow the orders of the time, and paint fresh stripes, albeit undersized, just on the fuselage undersides; it would help to explain the total lack of any hint of the stripes elsewhere. Total guesswork, I'm afraid, but it might appear "logical" to Mr. Spock.

Edgar

Edited July 29, 2010 by Edgar

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

This is going to require the odd leap of faith. From June to August, 41 Squadron was used on "Anti-Diver" patrols, in which case I think that it's extremely doubtful (since the patrol area was usually inland) that they ever had the full set (or even any) of stripes; it was acknowledged that the stripes constituted a lot of drag, and consideration of their removal arose as early as 7-7-44. Drag, while flying against the V1s, would definitely be unwelcome.

In September, 41 went back to flying sweeps, and it might have been felt necessary to follow the orders of the time, and paint fresh stripes, albeit undersized, just on the fuselage undersides; it would help to explain the total lack of any hint of the stripes elsewhere. Total guesswork, I'm afraid, but it might appear "logical" to Mr. Spock.

Edgar

well odd leaps of faith perhaps sometimes make liveable dogma. I like yours more than mine, especially as ( Photo Interpretartion Proviso again - or perhaps we should call it P.I.P) the mini stripes seem very clean.

So now - all I need to know is what is the full serial , MB85? or MB88?

Whether its a trick of the light or the P.I.P again but do you think the airframe seems quite shiny - again if they were trying to wring every ounce of speed out for AntiV1 use, then polishing the airframes would make sense.

Bring on the Mk XII airfix, I think I know what my scheme will be!! ( poor old 91 sqn - I promise to do one in their markings too)

Cheers

Jonners

[lufbramatt]

i think its MB854

[Edgar]

Typically, EB-Z is one that I don't have (yet.) In the MB--- range 862 was "E"; 858 was "D"; 794 was "H"; 846 was "J"; 798 was "U"; 882 was "B"; 842 was "Y"; 847 was "N"; 804 was "T"; 881 was "S", so "Z" could have been 85-, or 88-. They (as far as we know) were all retractable tail wheel variants, while EN--- (allegedly) had fixed; I can hear leaves frantically being turned, as I write, to find proof that it wasn't so.

Edgar

P.S. Forgot to add this; by the time of that photo, the finish was smooth, but definitely not glossy, and units were apparently told (by I.C.I.) not to use polish, since it would cause trouble in the event of a repaint/touch-up, because the paint wouldn't stick. They were supposed to use fine wet-and-dry paper, then wash down, and allow to dry.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Edgar

[Tony C]

Now when you consider that the BW stripes under the fuselage look very narrow

Didn't the Tempest Mk.II (?) have similar style stripes because of its similarity to the Fw190?

Could this design of stripe be for the same reason although to be fair, I can't think of a Axis aircraft it could be confused with?

[brewerjerry]

Hi

It is on the spitfire site as EB-Z MB854

details :-

3501 SU, delivered to 41Sqn 27 july 44, initially EB-Y then EB-Z, Hit by flak engine cut bellylanded nr Brookland Kent Category B, 17 August 44 repaired on site, 33MU 3-jan-45.

bases were :-

June-July 1944: Westhampnett

July 1944: Friston

July-December 1944: Lympne

December 1944: B.64 Diest/ Schaffen

December 1944-January 1945: Y.32 As/ Ophoven

January-March 1945: B.80 Volkel

Cheers

Jerry

Edited July 30, 2010 by brewerjerry

[Dave T Brown]

This is going to require the odd leap of faith. From June to August, 41 Squadron was used on "Anti-Diver" patrols, in which case I think that it's extremely doubtful (since the patrol area was usually inland) that they ever had the full set (or even any) of stripes; it was acknowledged that the stripes constituted a lot of drag, and consideration of their removal arose as early as 7-7-44. Drag, while flying against the V1s, would definitely be unwelcome.

In September, 41 went back to flying sweeps, and it might have been felt necessary to follow the orders of the time, and paint fresh stripes, albeit undersized, just on the fuselage undersides; it would help to explain the total lack of any hint of the stripes elsewhere. Total guesswork, I'm afraid, but it might appear "logical" to Mr. Spock.

Edgar

I have been trying to bottom the question of "Invasion stripes" on 41 Sqn Spitfire XII's and come to the conclusion they DID have them. However photos of them do seem as rare as Rocking horse muck.

My reason for this is as follows.

AIR27/426 states the following for operations in early June 1944.

June 6th "Escorts to Warick aircraft carried out between 13:00 hrs 14:35, and standing convoy patrols carried out between 13:35hrs and 19:55."

June 7th Shipping recce's and escort to shipping strikes in St Peter port harbour.

June 8th "the days work consisted of 3 shipping recce's and a series of convoy patrols.

Now the whole point of "Invasion stripes" was as a recognition aid to stop blue on blue fire particularly from naval vessles and SHAEF operational memorandum No 23 requires any aircraft operating in daylight near shipping lanes associated with Neptune / Overlord to be applied with these. It is fair to assume from the above ORB entries that they did carry Full invasion stripes. However the clincher for me is the ORB entry for June 9th.

June 9th " Today 41 squadron went over the beach head, led by Sqn Ldr Chapman" "blue section passed over massed shipping off the cote d'amour, east of Bayeux." "Yellow section passed over St Lo and turned up to Carentan"

[Dave T Brown]

This is going to require the odd leap of faith. From June to August, 41 Squadron was used on "Anti-Diver" patrols, in which case I think that it's extremely doubtful (since the patrol area was usually inland) that they ever had the full set (or even any) of stripes; it was acknowledged that the stripes constituted a lot of drag, and consideration of their removal arose as early as 7-7-44. Drag, while flying against the V1s, would definitely be unwelcome.

In September, 41 went back to flying sweeps, and it might have been felt necessary to follow the orders of the time, and paint fresh stripes, albeit undersized, just on the fuselage undersides; it would help to explain the total lack of any hint of the stripes elsewhere. Total guesswork, I'm afraid, but it might appear "logical" to Mr. Spock.

Edgar

Having consulted 41sqn's ORB again there is a further correction to the statement above regarding "patrol area was usually inland"

for instance

July 26th "They intercepted it and it fell to the guns of F/O M.A.L. Balasse 6 miles south of Beachy Head."

July 29th "A flying bomb was intercepted head on flying at 3,000ft off le Touquet, F/O M.A.L. Balasse diving from 7,000 feet misjudged his approach and narrowly missed a collision as he passed under the bomb, pulling up to come back to the attack he saw the bomb crash into the sea."

Fighters patrolled over the channel from the French coast upto the beginning of the gun belt at the English Coast. Other fighters did patrol inland and tried to intercept Divers (V1's) when they had passed through the gun belt. However it was preferable to shoot the divers down into the Sea.

This is going to require the odd leap of faith. From June to August, 41 Squadron was used on "Anti-Diver" patrols, in which case I think that it's extremely doubtful (since the patrol area was usually inland) that they ever had the full set (or even any) of stripes; it was acknowledged that the stripes constituted a lot of drag, and consideration of their removal arose as early as 7-7-44. Drag, while flying against the V1s, would definitely be unwelcome.

In September, 41 went back to flying sweeps, and it might have been felt necessary to follow the orders of the time, and paint fresh stripes, albeit undersized, just on the fuselage undersides; it would help to explain the total lack of any hint of the stripes elsewhere. Total guesswork, I'm afraid, but it might appear "logical" to Mr. Spock.

Edgar

Having consulted 41sqn's ORB again there is a further correction to the statement above regarding "patrol area was usually inland"

for instance

July 26th "They intercepted it and it fell to the guns of F/O M.A.L. Balasse 6 miles south of Beachy Head."

July 29th "A flying bomb was intercepted head on flying at 3,000ft off le Touquet, F/O M.A.L. Balasse diving from 7,000 feet misjudged his approach and narrowly missed a collision as he passed under the bomb, pulling up to come back to the attack he saw the bomb crash into the sea."

Fighters patrolled over the channel from the French coast upto the beginning of the gun belt at the English Coast. Other fighters did patrol inland and tried to intercept Divers (V1's) when they had passed through the gun belt. However it was preferable to shoot the divers down into the Sea.

[Dave T Brown]

This is going to require the odd leap of faith. From June to August, 41 Squadron was used on "Anti-Diver" patrols, in which case I think that it's extremely doubtful (since the patrol area was usually inland) that they ever had the full set (or even any) of stripes; it was acknowledged that the stripes constituted a lot of drag, and consideration of their removal arose as early as 7-7-44. Drag, while flying against the V1s, would definitely be unwelcome.

In September, 41 went back to flying sweeps, and it might have been felt necessary to follow the orders of the time, and paint fresh stripes, albeit undersized, just on the fuselage undersides; it would help to explain the total lack of any hint of the stripes elsewhere. Total guesswork, I'm afraid, but it might appear "logical" to Mr. Spock.

Edgar

Having consulted 41sqn's ORB again there is a further correction to the statement above regarding "patrol area was usually inland"

for instance

July 26th "They intercepted it and it fell to the guns of F/O M.A.L. Balasse 6 miles south of Beachy Head."

July 29th "A flying bomb was intercepted head on flying at 3,000ft off le Touquet, F/O M.A.L. Balasse diving from 7,000 feet misjudged his approach and narrowly missed a collision as he passed under the bomb, pulling up to come back to the attack he saw the bomb crash into the sea."

Fighters patrolled over the channel from the French coast upto the beginning of the gun belt at the English Coast. Other fighters did patrol inland and tried to intercept Divers (V1's) when they had passed through the gun belt. However it was preferable to shoot the divers down into the Sea.

[Dave T Brown]

Having consulted 41sqn's ORB again there is a further correction to the statement above regarding "patrol area was usually inland"

for instance

July 26th "They intercepted it and it fell to the guns of F/O M.A.L. Balasse 6 miles south of Beachy Head."

July 29th "A flying bomb was intercepted head on flying at 3,000ft off le Touquet, F/O M.A.L. Balasse diving from 7,000 feet misjudged his approach and narrowly missed a collision as he passed under the bomb, pulling up to come back to the attack he saw the bomb crash into the sea."

Fighters patrolled over the channel from the French coast upto the beginning of the gun belt at the English Coast. Other fighters did patrol inland and tried to intercept Divers (V1's) when they had passed through the gun belt. However it was preferable to shoot the divers down into the Sea.

Sorry Lads my computer just had a mad half hour I didn't intend to add this reply god knows how many times!

[Dave T Brown]

Studying other Spitfires that belonged to Squadrons in 10 group. It becomes apparent that most if not all applied thinner invasion markings than the 18 inch bands specified in SHAEF Operational Memorandum No23.

Other 10 group Sqns of which Photographs / colour side profiles can be found showing the thinner invasion markings are

131 Squadron

165 Squadron

616 squadron

Pete Brother's Mk VII when he was OC the Culmhead wing which incorporated 126, 131, 616 and although not based at Culmhead 41 Sqn

The only other Spitfire units in 10 group were 1 sqn, part of 276(ASR) sqn and 610 Sqn of which I have never seen photos or side elevations published.

Another point about the heading photo is the large slipper drop tank that the aircraft is carrying. It is much larger than the 30 gallon slipper tank probably the 90 gallon looking at the size of it.

[Troy Smith]

worth a bump, as Airfix have in included MB854 EB-Z,  - No.41 Sqn RAF, Tangmere June 1944 (invasion stripes provided as decals) 

 

On 07/08/2010 at 15:35, Dave T Brown said:

Studying other Spitfires that belonged to Squadrons in 10 group. It becomes apparent that most if not all applied thinner invasion markings than the 18 inch bands specified in SHAEF Operational Memorandum No23.

Other 10 group Sqns of which Photographs / colour side profiles can be found showing the thinner invasion markings are

131 Squadron

165 Squadron

616 squadron

Pete Brother's Mk VII when he was OC the Culmhead wing which incorporated 126, 131, 616 and although not based at Culmhead 41 Sqn

 

 

AFAIK, the only photo of EB-Z is this one, which isn't very helpful regarding the wing stripes, but given the lack of stripes on the upper side,  this is sometime later than June 1944.

 

Airfix supply wings stripes as decals, 

 

My point is regarding the wing stripes, 

 

10 Group Spitfires had a unusual quirk in that the applied narrow AEAF stripes,   both to the fuselage AND wings

 

The narrow wings stripes can just be seen here

 

Not a big problem,  just leave the wing stripes off, but a missed chance to get the right stripe width, which would look quite striking. 

 

this is one of the BBMF flight planes with the 10 group narrow stripes which shows them better.

I'm not turning up other 10 Group images,   anyone know of any others with the narrow stripes? 

 

Hope of interest/use

[Antti_K]

Hello Troy,

 

and thank you for the post. I'm finishing my Mk.XII in 1/48 scale and got more interested in the subject when I saw your post. The Airfix decal sheet reveals interesting details:

 

• decals 11 - 14; are these for the propeller blades? I would say that the "discs" should be "pink" (or rather dull red) in colour and there should be only one line of text in yellow giving the drawing number
• decal 15; at least MB882 didn't have these on the spinner, but an oval hatch with a key hole (like in Mk.IX)
• decals 18; the letter M is located inside a square on MB853
• decal 19; where should this go?
• decals 21 - 24; the lettering doesn't match at all with that seen on MB853
• decal 29; fuel capacity 90 galls? according to Morgan & Shacklady and A.P. 1565K-P.N. it should be 85 galls
• decals 44 and 45 (and 52, 53) show that there is a triangular "cut" in the front of main landing gear bay (again MB882 didn't have this feature)
• no decals for Coffman starter, oil filler or gun camera?

 

Should we call these "inaccuracies" or did Spitfire Mk.XIIs really differ that much between individual planes?

 

Cheers,

Antti

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, Antti_K said:

are these for the propeller blades?

yes.

3 hours ago, Antti_K said:

I would say that the "discs" should be "pink" (or rather dull red) in colour and there should be only one line of text in yellow giving the drawing number

The colour of the disc indicates what the blade is made of and covered with.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234918219-propeller-markings-on-spitfires-and-seafires/

"Regarding the markings within the coloured disc I can add that the Horden-Richmond Aircraft one shown in my first response above with the green disc and HRA text was made of Hydulignum with a Rotoloid covering and Armoured Sheath as identified by the disc and letters HRA.

Jablo Propellors Ltd blades had pink discs while Horden-Richmond Aircraft Ltd blades had green ones, Rotol Airscrew Ltd blades had white while Yellow ones were seen on The Airscrew Company Ltd blades. The lettering within the disc would vary which would indicate the Material , Covering and Sheath of the blade so marked."

the linked Key forum thread is broken, but I know I had posted the images here on occasion. 

 

OK, found it 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/103145-propeller-markings

 

and

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/79363-questions-on-spitfire-propellers-merged

 

4 hours ago, Antti_K said:

at least MB882 didn't have these on the spinner, but an oval hatch with a key hole (like in Mk.IX)

Ah, OK.  

Now... believe it or not I'm not that interested in Spitfires, but you end up absorbing info on here by osmosis.... 

 

But, there are different spinner makers, and they used different locking systems.  

a Key type with one slot, and  one with usually two screw between each blade.  

 

The only ones I have made a bit of a study are Hurricane spinners,  

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235078582-hurricane-rotol-spinners-the-cm1-vs-es9-quest/

 

there did not seem to be any logic to what was fitted, except one type was used initially,  and the other became more common. 

 

I'm not about to go on an image hunt, but I suspect you may find the same applies to Spitfires, this goes for blade types as well. It does on Hurricanes.

4 hours ago, Antti_K said:

• decals 18; the letter M is located inside a square on MB853
• decal 19; where should this go?
• decals 21 - 24; the lettering doesn't match at all with that seen on MB853
• decal 29; fuel capacity 90 galls? according to Morgan & Shacklady and A.P. 1565K-P.N. it should be 85 galls
• decals 44 and 45 (and 52, 53) show that there is a triangular "cut" in the front of main landing gear bay (again MB882 didn't have this feature)
• no decals for Coffman starter, oil filler or gun camera?

I honestly don't know.  I suspect neither do Airfix, and some of these are just 'generic' items, or appropriate to maybe the XIV of "XVIII" kit...

 

4 hours ago, Antti_K said:

Should we call these "inaccuracies"

Airfix - research.   I raise you the wing stripes I mention above.

4 hours ago, Antti_K said:

or did Spitfire Mk.XIIs really differ that much between individual planes?

The 2nd part may reveal some of these, especially regarding the two Mk.XII batches,  EN*** and MB*** IIRC. 

 

Some of it maybe just that in reality it didn't matter particularly,  say the type of blade or spinner used, and it was what was available. 

 

It's late, and I really don't want to go down the rabbit warren  of image hunting and detail checking,  say the above points,  but the above may give you a few pointers as to how far you want test your sanity, I mean research facilities and abilities....    

 

pidä hauskaa!

 

(I honestly hope auto translate is working) 

T

[Phoenix44]

Funny how you see what you are looking for - only now realised there's TWO blokes on the tail fir some reason in that photo!

[Black Knight]

They're holding the tail down whilst the man in the cockpit runs the engine up to full power

[Antti_K]

Terve Troy,

 

and thank you for your detailed response. I found that document about propeller blades and their markings "a couple" of years ago when I did some research for my PR.XIX projects. I based my assumption of pink discs and yellow blade drawing number on a photograph of the remains of the last surviving Mk.XII published here on BM. IIRC the BBMF ground crew member who shared the document on Key forum also explained, that the pink discs were the most common.

 

Can you give any further information about decals 21-24 and 31-32? Do they give the technical specifications about the paints used for camouflage? The Wired Through (WT) marking is clear as is the small DTD517 marking. That "SAL/65/R1272" for example is confusing me. What does it mean? On the rudder of MB853 there is "PA/BK/307344/DSL" (which is also a mystery to me).

 

Toy, your translator is working perfectly😉

 

Cheers,

Antti

[Graham Boak]

It would be a little surprising to confirm two separate sources of spinner production for such a short run of aircraft.  Yes the spinner went on for further use on later variants, but not for some time after the decision was made to go ahead with the Mk.XII.