Probably a dumb question about Spitfires

[shaggy101]

I noticed that on the two mk1 Spitfires at Duxford that underside of the wings were different colours, the port wing was white & the starboard one black. Simple question, what is that all about?

[Wissam24]

The Mk1 Spitfires early on had that scheme for visual identification from the ground - somewhat similar to the thinking behind invasion stripes. I forget why they were abandoned but I guess the need for them was outweighed by the need for effective camouflage.

[shaggy101]

The Mk1 Spitfires early on had that scheme for visual identification - somewhat similar to the thinking behind invasion stripes. I forget why they were abandoned but I guess the need for them was outweighed by the need for effective camouflage.

Lovely stuff, cheers mate

[FarnboroJohn]

The Mk1 Spitfires early on had that scheme for visual identification from the ground - somewhat similar to the thinking behind invasion stripes. I forget why they were abandoned but I guess the need for them was outweighed by the need for effective camouflage.

I have seen a number of pilots quoted as saying they hated it and were far more concerned with being invisible to 109s than identifiable to the Observer Corps, which was the purpose of the scheme. I expect that by the Battle of Britain (and following 1 Squadron's mutinous fitting of armour to their Hurricanes in France) the squadrons felt that they knew far more about equipment requirements than the Air Ministry. Perhaps they also sensed that whatever they did, retribution would be limited by the paramount requirement for their services.

John

[st24]

It should be noted of course that it was all the day fighters of the time - Hurricanes, Gladiators, Blenheims, I think even a few obsolete Furies and Gauntlets amongst others were so painted..

[AlexC]

Don't think they were marked like that for very long. Some later had sky undersides with just the port wing painted black, also for ID purposes.

[Ruislip Rustler]

the port wing was white & the starboard one black

You've got them the wrong way round.

Don't think they were marked like that for very long. Some later had sky undersides with just the port wing painted black, also for ID purposes.

It was promulgated in Air Ministry Orders at the very end of 1940 and lasted barely four months.

[shaggy101]

You've got them the wrong way round.

Same difference

[CJS]

It seems amusing to me that the wings should be painted different colours to help the ROC identify them, I know that the Spitfire was then, as it is now, probably the most recognisable of ww2 aircraft!

[Tommy]

True but as ST said, it wasn't just Spitfires that had the scheme.

[Brevet Cable]

It seems amusing to me that the wings should be painted different colours to help the ROC identify them, I know that the Spitfire was then, as it is now, probably the most recognisable of ww2 aircraft!

And yet Hurricane pilots still attacked Spitfires , Spitfire pilots attacked other Spitfires , Bomber gunners fired on Spitfires , etc.

As for the OC , don't forget that they were primarily civilian volunteers & that in the early years of the war aircraft recognition wasn't high on the agenda.

[CJS]

No that's all very true. Recognition improved dramatically through the war. And for those who got good at it - and I have first hand knowledge of this - it has stayed sharp even 70 years later!

[Trenchard]

There is an interesting thread on the Key Forums re this subject:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?110667-Black-amp-White-Underwing-Paint

Well worth a quick read

[FarnboroJohn]

It seems amusing to me that the wings should be painted different colours to help the ROC identify them, I know that the Spitfire was then, as it is now, probably the most recognisable of ww2 aircraft!

No ROC in the Battle of Britain, the Royal was granted in 1941.

The speed of movement in three dimensions - the fleeting nature of engagements - the tendency to shoot from astern - all mitigated against opponents in the air having the chance to see the bi-coloured undersides. Telling a Hurricane (perhaps the most identifiable with the really big radiator under the centre of the fuselage) from a 109 from a Spit in a split second was not the easiest of decisions.

John

[BigBlackCat]

It has to be remembered that those manning the AA guns at the start of the war were a little 'trigger happy' so the black and white undersides helped with that too...

Regarding misidentification of our own aircraft there was of course the 'Battle of Barking Creek' very early into the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barking_Creek

[FarnboroJohn]

It has to be remembered that those manning the AA guns at the start of the war were a little 'trigger happy' so the black and white undersides helped with that too...

Regarding misidentification of our own aircraft there was of course the 'Battle of Barking Creek' very early into the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barking_Creek

Think the Few would have felt quite safe as long as the AA gunners were aiming at them....

The Battle of Barking Creek was a classic example of inexperience led astray by, in this case, phantom plots from radar systems looking both ways. Once you put an idea into someone's head - in this case that they've been scrambled to deal with an escalating number of enemy planes - they will tend to act on it without much thought. Luckily (and perhaps a pointer to Fighter Command needing more training and experience, in aerial gunnery among other things) despite the numbers engaged only one or two aircraft were shot down in this blue-on-blue engagement.

John