Natural metal Spitfires.

[stefaan]

Hi.
In our archives we are coming across a few entries that state that the Spitfires in some of the SAAF sqns in the MTO has left to be painted.
I have heard from a 40 SAAF sqn Pilot that he flew his Spitfire that was delivered in natural metal for a few weeks as he had to wait his turn to get his a/c painted in the Standard SAAF colours.
I have seen a 3 sqn SAAF as well as a 7 sqn Spit in Italy in natural metal.
Question.
If the Air Ministry managed to enforce the USA produced a/c to be delivered
cammouflaged,why do we see UK delivered a/c in natural metal.
Is there an Air Ministry order that we have nissed???
These a/c were all end '44-45 era.
Any ideas??
Stefaan

[Franek Grabowski]

All Spitfires had been delivered in camouflage, perhaps with exception of post war late Mk 22/24s. There were several Spitfires in MTO with removed paint, for example MJ250 UF-Q in the summer 1944. I cannot say who, when and why but it was apparently such aircraft delivered to 40 SAAF Sqn.
BTW
Have you found any photos or mentions of Polish Spitfires and pilots in Italy?

[stefaan]

Hi Franek.

That is what is reported by the pilots.I find it funny that the RAF insist
on USA a/c had to be cammouflagred but they themselves can deliver in nat metal.
No I have never seen any photo's or names in the photo albums.
I think there may have been Polish pilots in 7 or 8 Wings,as they had other nationalities flying with them.
They were mostly in the RAF sqns in our SAAF wings.there info will be in the archives relavent to those RAF sqns.
Stefaan

[Franek Grabowski]

Stefaan
Removing camouflage was a local initiative and nothing approoved by the RAF. Natural metal had no advantages from operational point of view, performance also remained unaffected.

[SteveB]

Stefaan/Franek

It has taken me a little while to find a document in my files. In among some MAAF papers at the National Archives/PRO I have found an odd, isolated, very brief "Loose Minute" (there were no other documents around it that linked to the same issue). It reads simply:

TO: WAR ORG

SILVER SPITFIRES

The unpainted Spitfire IXs which are being prepared may be sent as normal replacements to any T.A.F. Spitfire Wings except those in Corsica.

Wing Commander
Combat Operations
21st May 1944

Clearly this is not much more help whether your first language is Afrikaans or Polish it is not totally clear in English! The note seems to confirm that the command system knew that NMF Spitfires existed and did not regard this as a problem. The words "which are being prepared" could mean that the a/c were stripped in the Med rather than delivered unpainted.

In the excellent book "Spitfires in SAAF Service" by Steve McLaren there are several photos of NMF Spitfires which are ALL referred to as Special HF MkIXs. Are those the photos that Stefaan refers to?

I believe there was quite a lot of experimentation in the ME with suitable colour schemes for high flying Spitfires. Is it possible that the paint was stripped because the colours in which a/c were delivered were thought unsuitable of high altitude work? In saying this I realise that NMF finish is unlikely to be a suitable replacement "camouflage".

Every little bit helps (sometimes)

Steve

[Graham Boak]

Not quite true, Franek. Stripping the paint off will save quite a bit of weight, and the resulting metal finish (if properly done) will be slightly smoother than the paint, thus reducing skin-friction drag slightly. It won't make the aircraft fly noticeably faster, but will allow it to claw a little extra altitude. So it would be a reasonable thing to try if you needed to operate on or near the ceiling of the fighter - to intercept an Ar.234, perhaps.

Can this scheme can be linked to HF-engined airframes?

[Franek Grabowski]

Nope, Graham. Surface was puttied and primed before painting and thus offered a much better smoothness. Note that Mustangs always had puttied and painted wings! Weight penalty was minor, a few kilos or pounds, so I would say weight of a pilot was a much more important factor.
Oh, those are not my conclusions but of the RAF - see Paul Lucas' home based aircraft 1945-1950.
PS You certainly mean Ju 86?

[Graham Boak]

Sorry Franek, but I assure you, as someone once professionally involved in aircraft performance and drag estimation, that the weight and surface finish of paint on an airframe is a factor: less so on a fighter than a bomber because of its small size, true. Yes, the weight of the pilot would be more noticeable but lacking UAV Spitfires that would be an operational matter for the unit. A more skilled pilot could compensate for any excess avoirdupois. Another step would be taking out the outer mgs and reducing the number of cannon shells - I would be interested to find out if this was done. Lacking such features suggests that what we have is more likely an experiment in the benefits or otherwise of natural metal finishes.

I'm not sure how much puttying was normally done on production Spitfires, other than gap-filling - the primer being part of the part of the paint counts towards the weight. On Mustangs the leading edge was puttied and smoothed in an attempt to maintain laminar flow as far back as possible. Spitfires have a join on the leading edge which would tend to spoil this. In general, Mustangs were built to a higher standard than Spitfires - or indeed any similar type.
When the Spitfires in Alexandria were used to counter Ju 86s then these were puttied in an attempt to smooth irregularities in the surface. Here the paint seems to have been polished/rubbed smooth rather than the airframe stripped to bare metal. However, the Ju 86s were long gone before the time this thread is referring to. I think the Ar 234 is the most likely candidate requiring such measures, although perhaps the Ju 88T is a possibility. The other type involved was the Me 410, but catching these seem to have been within the capabilities of the standard Spitfire. Perhaps this is an opportunity for specialists in Luftwaffe reconnaissance to comment?

[Juha]

hello
little bit off the topic, but IIRC in British Pacific Fleet on at least some carriers they concluded that Seafire's .303 mgs were rather useless and removed them. After a while they got a message from Admiralty that the Lordship had noticed that there had not been any expenditure of .303 ammo on those carriers and reminded that per HM regulations those mgs were part of Seafire's armament and so should be reinstalled immediately. On the carriers men solved the problem by dumping some of the .303 ammo overboard so that the expenditure of .303 ammo was on the right proportion to 20mm ammo expenditure and so all were happy. Usually the front line troops were capable to adjust to the situation and did the things as they saw best even if the higher HQs were sometimes out of touch to battlefield realities. At least that was usually case in the Finnish Armed Forces which tended to be not so well disciplined.

Juha

[Graham Boak]

Where did you read that, Juha? Given that only two BPF carriers had Seafires it shouldn't be too difficult to track down. I don't recall seeing it in Crosley or Winton.