Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: RAF camouflage in early World War 2
Organization: Computer Science, Heriot-Watt U., Scotland
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 05:02:59 GMT
Approved: military@att.att.com
Message-ID: <1990Oct30.050259.4103@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Lines: 30



From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>

I am building a model Spitfire, and the instruction sheet shows two
camouflage schemes.  One, dated 1939, has brown and green upper surfaces,
black on the port underside, and white on the starboard underside.  The
other, dated 1940, has duck egg green on the whole underside, and brown
and green again on the upper surfaces.  But the pattern of green on the
upper surfaces is almost an exact mirror image of the pattern used on the
1939 scheme - for example, a patch of green roughly Y shaped on the
starboard wing of the 1940 scheme appears on the port wing of the 1939
scheme.  I don't think this is a misprint, as I've seen photos of both
patterns - in fact, I've seen one photo of several Spitfires in echelon
formation, with the first and third aircraft using the 1940 pattern and the
second aircraft using the 1939 pattern.  What pattern the others had wasn't
clear.

So, here are the questions.  Why did the RAF flip the pattern over?  (I
presume, in spite of the opinion of any cynics, that it wasn't just to
annoy the people who painted the aircraft! :-)  And what was the purpose
of the black and white underside in early war colour schemes?  To help
the pilot tell left from right? :-)

-- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

