Jump to content

Beaufighter with 406 Sqn.


Recommended Posts

I'm building Tamiya's 1/48 Beaufighter Mk. VI with the Czech Master's Conversion to a IIF as I am trying to depict an aircraft from RCAF 406 Sqn. (They flew the Merlin engine version of the Beaufighter).

The aircraft I want to depict is the one that claimed the unit’s first success, coded MH U, unfortunately I can't seem to determine whether the squadron letter codes are in red or gray …

From the black and white photos I have as reference, in “Beaufighter Aces of WWII”, the letter codes appear about the same colour as the red in the fin flash…

There seems to be mixed information when it comes to the colour of the letter codes for quite a few of the squadrons. I’ve seen drawings depicting the same aircraft with both grey and red letter codes. To add to the confusion Tamiya’s decals have one of the aircraft RO B in red while the book “Beaufighter Aces of WWII” has them in grey. If that wasn’t enough the other aircraft on Tamiya’s decal sheet BQ I (depicted in grey) has also been shown in red.

Anyone with reference to sway the verdict one way or the other?

bristol%2Bbeaufighter%2BII.jpg

On another note, it appears that my aircraft also had a “towel rack” antenna mounted underneath. It seems to run from just aft of the forward crew hatch to just forward of the wing root. Anyone know what this was for?

Let me know if you have anything definitive. - Thanks

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi David,

When 406 flew the Merlin powered II-F the fuselage codes were Med Sea Grey with dull red serial number - Dull Ident Red codes on their Hercules powered Mk.VI's later on. I have that book you are referring to and I also have another photo of HU-M from the other side which will clear up the matter for you.

The towel rack antenna you refer to on the fuselage underside is a Beam Approach Antenna. If you would kindly PM me with your email addy I'll send you that photo of HU-M, and I'll also include at no extra charge a nice pic of that antenna.

Cheers,

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom.. If you have a picture that really shows them as Medium Sea Grey could you send it to me too as frankly they sure look to be dull red to me despite the caption stating Medium Sea Grey for the 406 picture in a Bristol Beaufighter "Camouflage & Markings I have as I don't always trust such captions. Certainly the official standards on all black schemes would be dull red codes and codes for 409 that were also flying IIFs for much of the same time were red as were some MkIs that 409 trained on at the same time and the 406 photos look more red than grey to me as they match up with the tail flash and roundel red parts too. I would be interested in the shot of HU-M from the other side. By the way the same Camouflage & markings book shows a 456 sqd MKII in June/July 1942 (just before 406 and 409 gave up their MKIIs) as having dull red codes too. Maybe the codes were changed from Grey to Red during the year that 406 flew the MKIIs and the time that 409 (Sept.41 to June 42)flew them?

Cheers

Bruce

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom.. If you have a picture that really shows them as Medium Sea Grey could you send it to me too as frankly they sure look to be dull red to me despite the caption stating Medium Sea Grey for the 406 picture in a Bristol Beaufighter "Camouflage & Markings I have as I don't always trust such captions. Certainly the official standards on all black schemes would be dull red codes and codes for 409 that were also flying IIFs for much of the same time were red as were some MkIs that 409 trained on at the same time and the 406 photos look more red than grey to me as they match up with the tail flash and roundel red parts too. I would be interested in the shot of HU-M from the other side. By the way the same Camouflage & markings book shows a 456 sqd MKII in June/July 1942 (just before 406 and 409 gave up their MKIIs) as having dull red codes too. Maybe the codes were changed from Grey to Red during the year that 406 flew the MKIIs and the time that 409 (Sept.41 to June 42)flew them?

Cheers

Bruce

Bruce,

Camouflage and Markings states that MSG fuselage codes were changed to Dull Red after May 1942, which was also associated with a change in fuselage roundels from A1 to C1. There is also mention in the book of some squadrons painting the yellow outer ring of the A1 roundels MSG to tone it down. But I wouldn't want to venture too far down that path. 406's first kill was on Sept 1st, 1941 according to Osprey's Beaufighter Aces of WWII, so this is prior to the change.

Ortho film was widely used in WWII and one needs to understand its' effects on colours. Interpreting colours in WWII photos is always a bit of a raging debate when looking for absolute answers, but I think one needs known reference points. If the Camouflage and Markings publication is to be trusted as regards the time frame of code colour change, I would go with that. For me, that would be a known reference point.

Cheers,

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom..I agree that it is hard to read black and white photos but don't complicate it by bringing in Ortho film as I certainly don't see the 406 shot as being in Ortho as it tends to turn yellow almost black and the outer rings of the fuselage roundel is clearly a light colour here so we are not dealing with ortho film. That being said there are some references for 406 codes being Medium Sea Grey and if the OP is doing the first kill aircraft I doubt anyone could really prove him wrong if he used the Medium Sea Grey....I'm just not sure here....

Cheers

Bruce

P.S. I agree that the fuselage roundel looks like an A1 and not a C1 so clearly before change...To OP Kostenuk and Griffen state the first kill was the night of Sept.1/2 in Beau II R2336 but don't give any plane letter. Crew was F/O R.C. Fumerton and Sgt. L.P.S. Bing (Observer) and credited with a Ju.88 over Bedlington. This was not just the unit's first kill but the RCAF's first night fighter victory and 406 codes were HU with M being the aircraft individual letter. I would guess that the HU is to the rear of the roundel on the starboard side too but if Tom has a shot of that side he can confirm this if this helps with more info....

Edited by RCAFFAN
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is, typically the more research you do the muddier the waters become on a lot of these historical aircraft subjects. Ignorance can be bliss and it's not until you see the definitive photo record come out later to prove you got that marking or paint colour wrong that you go... "if only I'd known at the time I built that model"... dry.gif

Interesting looking at a couple of shots of the 406 Squadron Beaufighter IIF below as the squadron letter codes appear quite different... time period could be different etc... but it does lead you to question...

I'm going to have to go with the verdict, well the codes were supposed to be in grey for that time period according to official sources... but who knows.

However it may answer Bruce's question about how the codes appeared on each side of the aircraft... if this is the same aircraft at the same time period. :whistle:/> What we can tell is that the first photo is definitely not R2336... and the picture below that doesn't include the tail serial number (if the photo was of good enough quality to make it out )... so again who knows.

Really this is a fun hobby isn't it.

Thanks for the input - Happy modelling

David

BeaufighterIIF_HU-M%20morris_unk_zpsq0evkxy9.jpg

BeaufighterIIF_HUM_zpsfucl6dsy.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi David,

I just did a wee bit of a search and that pic I sent you showing the right hand rear of HU-M, R238?, is actually R2386. Have you been able to tie up R2336 as HU-M? References state that it was R2336 (no aircraft letter given) for 406's first kill, but you mention HU-M only and not a s/n. So was R2336 shot down/damaged and replaced by R2386 as HU-M (done all the time) or could R2336 be a typo of R2386? It wouldn't be the first time that incorrect information was continually published by various publications without properly doing research and cross checking. Just trying to help.

Cheers,

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

BeaufighterIIF_HU-M%20morris_unk_zpsq0evkxy9.jpg

Whenever I look at black & white images such as this one, I compare the colors that I know. For example, in the above pic, we know the roundel colors are red, white, blue and yellow. Comparing the white in the roundel to the squadron codes, my immediate feeling is that they are white also. The serial number is definitely a different hue/tone than all of the others so my guess is that it would be grey. One thing I find over and over again is that, whatever the "official" colors were supposed to be, some squadrons always seemed to do what they felt like, or, at the very least, used whatever paints were on hand.Just my .02 cents. :)

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Beaufighter pictured above with at partial serial number of R23?? is almost certainly R2386... at least all indications point to that at this stage. I have not been able to tie any squadron code letters to R2336 (credited with the first kill) and am now wondering if it was perhaps a Mk. II with the dihedral tail? See reference of 406 Sqn. page Click here.

Then I ran into this little gem tonight after a couple of hours of searching.... so maybe we have a lead on the possible letter codes on R2336... now if I could confirm which tail type it had... of course I already installed the non-dihedral tail (with superglue no less) so the odds just went up astronomically that R2336 had the dihedral tail. dry.gif

The post below was taken from another forum located here

"I've been lookingeverywhere and just found it in where I would not have expected to. I wasreading 'All the fine young eagles' by David Bashow, and found an account byFumerton which states "On the night of 1 September 1941, I took off fromAcklington in Beaufighter 'J', with radar operator Sgt. Pat Bing, for a nighttest. ............. Not too long after that, we were scrambled and given aheight and course to steer to steer for the interception of a bandit.".....

I can safely deduce that R2336 was coded HU J."

So the remaining question is, can anyone say with any certainty which tail type R2336 had?

Thanks for the help,

David

Edited by VMFA314Knights
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found a number of typos in Kostenuk and Griffin so if the reports elsewhere say the plane was coded M then I would concur with Tom that the number is actually R2386 as Tom reported and I would go with that. Looking at the shot from the other side that has now been posted, I would also be pretty positive that the serial was red but the Sqd. code and plane letter are Medium Sea Grey. They are clearly a different tone than the white in the roundel and are not white. I think Tom and I are now in agreement as to Red serial and Medium Sea Grey codes and if "M" was the plane involved and the serial blocked in the photo is R2386, I would strongly suggest that that is the serial and K and G (R2336) is a typo as there are many in the book unfortunately. While I haven't done any further research, I believe that all the Mk IIs were built with the flat tail surfaces and the dihedral tails were not introduced until the Mk VI so I wouldn't worry about the tail you have used David as that would be correct. I suppose that the tail could have been replaced with a later one but the photo only shows the part that would be flat on either tail type so I would go with the flat one as the plane was built with. The same would apply to R2336 if you decide on that number but since the photos have been taken of plane M I would suspect that that is the plane in question and R2386 was the serial. Of course if the plane was "J" then it could indeed be R2336 and K and G is not a typo but it would be nice to lock up both serial and plane code. Isn't this fun? Perhaps someone has access to Squadron records or history's to confirm this but at least we know the colours(and tailplane) now for your model David whatever serial and letter you use.

Cheers

Bruce

P.S. I don't know why the 406 site talks of MkII and MkIIF as they were the same plane as only one version with Merlins was built (not counting the single MkV prototype that was test flown by a number of Sqds but not produced)....although I note that K and G talk of MKIIF as the planes 406 flew but only say MKII when writing of R2336 and the victory so that may be where that came from...

Edited by RCAFFAN
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce, Tom et al,

I admittedly jumped the gun on the association of the Beaufighter coded HU-M and the serial R2336, as the photo above seems to indicate HU-M was R2386 (I actually had this information tucked away in the archives but failed to locate it at the time of my original post)

I'm going to go out on a limb and go with the book text 'All the Fine Young Eagles' by David Bashow (plus standardization rules combined with available photos) and bet that serial R2336 (in red) was coded HU-J (in gray) as I believe both R2336 and R2386 Beaufighters were both on strength with 406 Sqn. (Ref. Link )

It is not waterproof and I won't have the kit ready to decal for a while yet so there is still time to change the verdict. :rolleyes:/>

By all means feel free to chime in with any new information.

Thanks for pitching in on the decision,

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce, Tom et al,

I admittedly jumped the gun on the association of the Beaufighter coded HU-M and the serial R2336, as the photo above seems to indicate HU-M was R2386 (I actually had this information tucked away in the archives but failed to locate it at the time of my original post)

I'm going to go out on a limb and go with the book text 'All the Fine Young Eagles' by David Bashow (plus standardization rules combined with available photos) and bet that serial R2336 (in red) was coded HU-J (in gray) as I believe both R2336 and R2386 Beaufighters were both on strength with 406 Sqn. (Ref. Link )

It is not waterproof and I won't have the kit ready to decal for a while yet so there is still time to change the verdict. :rolleyes:/>/>/>/>

By all means feel free to chime in with any new information.

Thanks for pitching in on the decision,

David

David,

I don't think you have to go "out on a limb" here. In Bashow's book you have Fumerton recounting the event as being in aircraft "J" - whether from memory or out of his log book, it is in his own words. There is also the publishing of R2336 as being the aircraft in question from various sources. You can question and re-question, check and re-check....... If you want you can get a copy of 406's ORB from that time frame, but don't count on an aircraft letter and s/n tie-up by that means - rarely, I have found, does this happen. The Air Ministry had no use for keeping track of individual aircraft letters within a squadron to their respective s/n - they tracked/recorded by s/n. When we try to do what you are doing - and I have - we pray for a picture, but in the end we are usually relegated to putting the pieces together ourselves. One doesn't necessarily need "waterproof". I think that if you get enough evidence pointing in the same direction, you are safe.

As regards flat tailplane or dihedral at 12 degrees for R2336, all I can say is look at the pic below of HU-M and HU-K. I would go with flat tailplane on R2336 and not get concerned whether or not it was ever retrofitted given the time frame - Sept 1941 - and the dihedral tailplane being tested on T3032 in January 1942.

HU-M%20and%20HU-K_zps07mzfikx.jpg

The link below also contains other kills of Fumertons. Scroll to the bottom for the list of aircraft he was flying.

http://acesofww2.com/Canada/aces/fumerton.htm

Cheers,

Tom

Edited by Tom
Link to post
Share on other sites

David.. I note that the list Tom posted states both the first kill to R2336 and a second attack damaging a He 111 6 days later using R2336 also such that I would guess R2336 was his plane at the time and if he says his plane was "J" then I think you could indeed link the two as the same plane such that you seem to have figured out the serial and aircraft letter you need. I would agree with Tom and go with that combination. Post some pics when you are done.

Cheers

Bruce

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...