The Spitfire Forums

Historic Aviation => Spitfire => Topic started by: Antoni on January 16, 2009, 10:42:06 PM



Title: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Antoni on January 16, 2009, 10:42:06 PM
EN398 was part of batch EN112 to EN759 originally ordered as Mk Vcs but built as a mixture of Mk VIIs, IXs, XIs, and XIIs by Vickers Armstrongs, delivered between November 1942 and August 1943. A relatively early Mk IXc with broad cannon blisters, “small” carburettor intake, single-angled horn-balanced elevator and standard rudder.

First issued to 402 Squadron RCAF on 18th February 1943 and initially coded AE*I, it became the regular aircraft of F/Lt Ian Keltie. In March it was recoded AE*B and the ground crew added a cartoon painting of Popeye on the port cowling side.


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Antoni on January 16, 2009, 10:43:54 PM
On March 22nd EN398 was transferred to 416 Squadron RCAF remaining on charge until the end of the month when it was listed as part of the Kenley Station HQ Flight. Presumably this was when JEJ adopted it as his own, claiming his first kill with it on 3rd April 1943.

In early April EN398 underwent some modifications at Air Service Training, Hamble, returning to Kenley on 16th April, initially on charge with 416 Squadron and then transferred to 421 Squadron (when 421 Squadron replaced 416 Squadron). It remained JEJ’s personal aircraft until well into the summer his last claim being a Bf 109 damaged on 3rd April 1943.

According to JEJ in his book Wing Leader, EN398 was delivered to the Canadian Wing at Kenley “gleaming and bright in a new spring coat of camouflage paint.” The two photographs of EN398, taken about July 1943, show signs of some repainting and/or touching-up, possibly during its time with AST Hamble. There are two patches, one on the starboard side of the fin’s leading edge, the second on the starboard fuselage spine just behind the cockpit canopy and above the roundel. One suggestion is that it may be grey/green primer. An area under the starboard code letter ‘E’ appears to be a lighter shade of Ocean Grey, perhaps from when it was recoded. The engine cowlings appear to be freshly repainted or perhaps replacements.  The 18 inch Sky rear fuselage band does not seem to be parallel, it rear edge tapering in a little as it runs towards the underside. A red Canadian Maple leaf on a white circular background was carried on both sides of the fuselage under the windscreen. JEJ also mentioned in his book instructing his rigger “to paint the red and blue pennant of a Wing Commander on EN398.” Most commonly these pennants were painted on the port side only of the engine cowling in front of the windscreen. In EN398’s case it would be just in front of the Canadian Maple leaf badge.


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: admin on January 20, 2009, 12:35:30 PM
Thanks, Antoni. I realized that the artwork included in the recent Greycap article was, hmm, less than perfect rendition of JE-J's aircraft.
I actually went about creating a better profile. As for your mention of the red maple leaf (which would be logical), any confirmation of this colour? Most profiles, decal sheets etc. that I have come across show this in green.

Best regards,
/Martin


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Antoni on January 22, 2009, 10:44:45 PM
Most profiles, decal sheets etc. that I have come across show this in green.

Best regards,
/Martin


I never give much credence to quantity. In my experience it is usually a case of the common practice of copying what someone else has done. Similar with decal and kit manufactures, who for the most part seem to just copy what they find in a book or magazine. I can find many examples of mistakes that are still repeated today, that date back to publications from the 1960’s. Johnson was not Canadian. Perhaps someone did not understand that this was the Canadian emblem and thought it was a clover leaf or shamrock, or maybe, because it was a leaf, made it green because leaves are green. So I would turn the question around. What evidence is there that it was green? I do know of any explanation being given.   Neil Robinson, in his article on this Spitfire, Model Aircraft Monthly Oct 2006, shows it as a red leaf and he is knowledgeable enough, I think, to have portrayed it as green if there were good reasons for thinking that it was green. But he makes no comment on the colour or indeed that it differs from the way it is commonly represented. The badge can be seen in photographs of EN398 before it was adopted by Johnson so I think we can safely assume that it is a legacy of its time with the Canadian squadrons and not added by Johnson. If someone can provide some good, credible evidence such as Keltie was of Irish descent so had a green leaf then I am prepared to change my mind. Until then I go with common sense that says it was the normal Canadian red maple leaf.

MK392 was another Mk IX flown by Johnson in 1944/45. Profiles of this Spitfire look very similar to EN398 with the letter Js with curved bottoms and the maple leaf badge. I do think there are any photographs of MK392, or they show very little of the aircraft. However, Watermark Decals have a photograph of MK392 on their instruction sheet of MK392 taken in January 1944/45.Unfortunately the webpage where the photograph could be seen appears to have been removed. Gone are the invasion stripes and the Sky fuselage band, and the spinner has been painted black. Interestingly, the,letter Js have flat bottoms, not rounded like EN398, and there are no maple leaf badges. This agrees with photographs of Johnson’s spare Spitfire, MK329 JE*J Jr which has the same shaped letter Js and no maple leaf badge. So I suspect that all these profiles are how it is imagined it looked based on the appearance of EN398. But these people never tell you it is all based on conjecture, they allow you to think it is fact.


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Editor on January 23, 2009, 11:44:30 AM
I agree that the red would be the most logical colour for the leaf.

As for another common practice with JE-J's aircraft. They are often depicted with a W/Cdr pennant but without any kill marks on the port side.
As far as I know, the only photos of EN398 in JE-J markings were the two of the port side. Unless JE-J had some personal preference against
showing off his tally,  which I am not aware of, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the kill marks were there?

/Martin


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Antoni on January 23, 2009, 10:16:53 PM
We only have Johnson’s word for it that the W/Cdr pennant was on EN398 but there is no reason to doubt it. I don’t think he mentioned any kill markings.

MK329 JE*J Jr has neither the W/Cdr pennant of kill markings on the port side but by all accounts he did not fly this Spitfire very often.

The photograph of MK392 in Jan 1945 is of the port side and there are definitely no kill markings or pennant on it at that time.



Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Editor on January 24, 2009, 05:46:07 PM
So this is what I'm getting it to. Still learning the basics of drawing, so things are taking perhaps more time and effort than they should.
Haven't decided whether to keep the kill marks or not.
How do you like it?

(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1884/jejspitfiresamplerem6.jpg)


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Antoni on January 24, 2009, 10:12:13 PM
Pretty good. Matches Neil robinson's model closely.  The green on the engine cowling a darker shade perhaps? The question that never seems to have been asked is: was Popeye still there?


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: WWIIColours on June 12, 2009, 08:22:39 PM
About the letters code colours "JE J", the spinner and the fuselage band colour, the print artworks by known artists and the portrait in the model kit No.48061 in 1/48 appears not as Sky type S, but light grey colour. For example some Spitfire model kit manufacturer offered the letter code colour decals in Sky type S in 2000. Today the same spitfire model kit manufacturer offers now the letter code colour with another shape (I mean the JE J) in light grey colour. Is it true this?


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Editor on June 13, 2009, 03:21:51 PM
WWIIcolours,

It is just a guess based on the interpretation of the few available b/w photos, two of which have been shown in this thread. I believe that looking at these one cannot draw a conclusion that the letters were of a different colour than the sky band. But of course, there is no technical way of proving that the colour was sky and not, say, grey. I guess that the grey theory involves a bit of artistic license.

As for the shape and placement of the lettering, I believe my profiles gets pretty close to the actual thing.

/Martin


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: NZTyphoon on June 14, 2009, 01:43:24 PM
Just for interest the photo of  MK329 is in Shores and Thomas' 2 TAF Vol 4 - apparently the original photo was badly water damaged as a consequence of which the details of the individual letter and the D-Day stripes are missing. What can be seen is that the code letters are flat bottomed, as described by Antoni and appear to be serifed. They definitely look different to those on EN398.

I can still remember building Airfix's old Spitfire IX in Johnny Johnson's markings...and now I feel really old. :-\


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: marluc on June 14, 2009, 03:07:24 PM
The green on the engine cowling a darker shade perhaps?

In my humble opinion I think that the green on the cowling is new paint,the Ocean Green besides don´t looks wheathered as the fuselage O.G.So,the engine cowling could be a replacement panel.Greetings:

Martin


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Antoni on June 14, 2009, 06:03:08 PM
........

According to JEJ in his book Wing Leader, EN398 was delivered to the Canadian Wing at Kenley “gleaming and bright in a new spring coat of camouflage paint.” The two photographs of EN398, taken about July 1943, show signs of some repainting and/or touching-up, possibly during its time with AST Hamble. There are two patches, one on the starboard side of the fin’s leading edge, the second on the starboard fuselage spine just behind the cockpit canopy and above the roundel. One suggestion is that it may be grey/green primer. An area under the starboard code letter ‘E’ appears to be a lighter shade of Ocean Grey, perhaps from when it was recoded. The engine cowlings appear to be freshly repainted or perhaps replacements. 


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Antoni on June 14, 2009, 06:05:55 PM
Just for interest the photo of  MK329 is in Shores and Thomas' 2 TAF Vol 4 - apparently the original photo was badly water damaged as a consequence of which the details of the individual letter and the D-Day stripes are missing. What can be seen is that the code letters are flat bottomed, as described by Antoni and appear to be serifed. They definitely look different to those on EN398.

I can still remember building Airfix's old Spitfire IX in Johnny Johnson's markings...and now I feel really old. :-\

MK329 or MK392?


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Edgar Brooks on June 21, 2009, 02:11:17 PM
Got (sort of) confirmation, yesterday; talking to a friend, in Canada, and he sadi that he was involved, years ago, in judging a "stand off" r/c scale competition, which included JEJ.  The modeller produced a letter, from Johnson, confirming that the leaf was green.
Edgar


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Big_guy on June 22, 2009, 08:49:36 PM
Hi guys,

Good discussion going on here.  As this is a pet peeve of mine, I am in the process of writing up a small follow-up piece to a short modelling article on EN398 that is coming up in the next RT magazine (www.ipmscanada.com).  So here's some excerpts from what I've currently got written up:

This red vs. green maple leaf thing has strong evidence to support that it was always a red maple leaf as the RCAF-mandated marking, and nothing (that I've ever seen) to indicate the use of any other colour, official or otherwise.

There are (at least) two official and widespread national identification markings for RCAF Spitfires:

  • the official marking, which was an 8" decal, consisting of a 'veined' red maple leaf sitting an 7" Azure Blue disk, surrounded by a 1/2" Dark Blue ring.
  • the commonly-seen marking on Spitfires, a simple red leaf shape on a plain white disk, approximately 8" diameter.


(Note: I won't deny that a traditional red-white-blue roundel marking also existed; I've just never seen evidence of it on wartime aircraft.)

Without going into the evidentiary background in detail, the following helps establish the lineage of the red maple leaf:

  • the RCAF ensign, flying the red maple leaf roundel, was approved in 1940
  • in Feb 1943, the official blue-blue-red decal was approved for use on overseas operational aircraft
  • in Nov 1943, the RCAF ordered all units to fly the RCAF Ensign

Thus RCAF personnel were aware of and were conditioned to think in terms of a red maple leaf roundel to identify themselves to the world, well in time for airmen to consider it when designing the marking.

Why the red/white roundel evolved is anybody's guess - maybe it was designed first at the grass roots level (I once interviewed a 414 Sqn Mustang pilot who told me that his Spitfire pilot buddy first designed the marking), and then RCAF HQ got involved to standardize the marking, maybe there was a shortage of the original decals (a result of higher attrition than planned?), or maybe something like easier application with stencil/paint and better wear and durabilty.  Who knows at this point?  For sure they both existed and were in use at the same time by different units.  You definitely see variations in the red leaf shape on Spitfires, so it was not a standardized stencil or drawing that was being used for the paint job.

Perhaps contributing to the issue is that during the First World War, RAF No. 5 (AC) Sqn worked closely with the Canadian Corps. Consequently, they adopted a green maple leaf as the unit badge, which was approved in June 1937.  So why did 5 Sqn choose green?  Why not?  The British knew what colour leaves were, and we certainly didn’t have any reason or place to challenge that assertion.  Maybe that is where the green leaf idea originated?  Or possibly the original 1/72 Airfix kit with JE-J and a green leaf, plus flawed assumptions by now-ancient resources like the Harleyford Spitfire book and the Profile series booklet, showed a green maple leaf on JE-J, are other possible culprits in how the urban legend got started.

And incidentally, for the red maple leaf marking, a number of profile drawings and model decal sheets are using Canada's flag maple leaf as the pattern.  This is wrong, as the current leaf was not in use until 1965, when it was designed for our new (current) national flag. The WW II markings were a lot less stylized, and a lot more like a natural (real) maple leaf.

Hope this helps the discussion!

Cheers,

Steve Sauvé
Ottawa, Canada


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: dragoonpvw on June 22, 2009, 10:16:36 PM
Steve, where does that leave Bob Morrow.
 To quote Bob of 402 Squadron..
Quote
On May 16, 1942 we moved to Kenley Surrey, and set about serious business. On May 31, we moved to Redhill in the Kenley Sector.
   When we were at Redhill, I introduced the logo of a red Maple Leaf in a white nine-inch circle. My rationale was that the Poles had their insignia, so why not the RCAF? RCAF headquarters liked the idea
.
 that would lead to the supposition that the maple Leaf appeared sometime after 31 May 1942 and before August when he went back to Canada.
 good luck
 Paul


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Big_guy on June 22, 2009, 11:34:07 PM
Paul,

That's great info; is it from a published source or a private one?  One of the things on my 'to do' list for this , RT article is to get the shooting dates for the official RCAF photos that show the marking.  That Bob Morrow date ties in nicely with 402 getting new Mk.IX's in early '42.

I actually have my George Burroughs interview recorded on a cassette (and I even know where the cassette is!), and I know he mentioned the Spitfire pilot, who George said created the marking, by name.  I'll give it a listen while I transfer it to disk and report my findings.  George passed on a few years ago, so there's no more follow-up questions to be asked.

I have no doubt that the dates and info you cited are correct, and that's great news, so I wonder why the RCAF HQ went for a wonky blue-blue-red marking, instead of just simply adopting officially the red-white marking as is, or at least modifying it into a true RCAF red-white-blue decal for operational aircraft application?  Something acceptable for all, yet subdued for night bomber use maybe?

Cheers,

Steve


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: NZTyphoon on June 22, 2009, 11:49:05 PM
Just for interest the photo of  MK329 is in Shores and Thomas' 2 TAF Vol 4 - apparently the original photo was badly water damaged as a consequence of which the details of the individual letter and the D-Day stripes are missing. What can be seen is that the code letters are flat bottomed, as described by Antoni and appear to be serifed. They definitely look different to those on EN398.

I can still remember building Airfix's old Spitfire IX in Johnny Johnson's markings...and now I feel really old. :-\

MK329 or MK392?

Sorry, I've been tied up with varsity exams etc; the photo is of MK392.


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: dragoonpvw on June 23, 2009, 01:38:27 AM
The quote is from "Spitfire the Canadians" by Robert Bracken. I had an email address for him at one time and some comments about "Johnnie's " plane as I am building a 1/4 scale model. The only evidence I heard about the colour is from Johnson's own comment about the leaf being green. I don't remember where it was originally quoted. I don't even know if his memory is correct. I eventually decided to go with the green, purely as a matter of respect. If he says it was green then that is how I will do it. The plane obviously had the standard red and white when he got the plane. There was also no idea about the shade of green. I prefer the idea of it being standard camo green if anything. The white circle with the maple leaf cutout seems a fine compromise. In the Canadians book there are a couple of different leafs, one just has a light outline of a lighter colour. Unfortunately the colours are hard to quantify in black and white as orthochromatic films still in use at that timecan often confuse us. If it was a panchromatic film then the colours could be different. The dark colour of the cowl I simply take as the oily area being cleaned and leaving a slightly darker and having a sheen.
 good luck
 Paul


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Big_guy on June 23, 2009, 03:41:02 AM
(I'm not sure if you were talking about Robert Bracken's email address, but if you were, then I should tell you that he passed away about a year ago.)

Seeing as the official decal marking and the ensign adopted in 1940, and flying at RCAF units were based on a red maple leaf, I truly believe there is no real evidence to support that any other colour but red would have been used for the marking.  It just doesn't make sense, at least from our country's history and perspective.

I just can't see Johnson purposely changing the leaf colour to green from red. For one thing, a green leaf on white background belongs to No. 5 Sqn RAF, but, more than that, I think it would have been terribly insulting to the Canadians he commanded. Changing your 'foreign' subordinates heraldry is simply not the way a leader gains respect from his troops.  Imagine changing the stars in a US marking from white to yellow? Or changing the Polish checkerboard to black and white, or something similar? I've recently seen a photo of an WWII RAAF Mosquito sporting what appears to be a current style red 'roo' roundel on the crew entry door.  What if Johnson commanded them and for some reason decided that a green 'roo' was the way to go?

Anyway, I'm really enjoying this discussion, and I hope to read and participate in more in the future!

Cheers,

Steve Sauvé
Ottawa, Canada


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: dragoonpvw on June 23, 2009, 04:25:20 AM
The white circle and red maple leaf has nothing to do with the rcacf ensign. I think you might be over thinking this. Bob Morrow chose this in 1942 as a logo for his planes, "402 Squadron". He used part of the ensign design, just because the poles had theirs.  It was definitely not a mandated insignia for RCACF aircraft. If it was, most planes flying during the war would have had charges against them. look through both of Brackens well illustrated books, there is a dearth of maple leafs. As I said earlier, look at Bob Ogilvies plane and see the maple leaf on his plane, just a white outline and a darker shade inside, Black? Red? Geen? who knows. Some ground crew had said that the white circle only was used with the maple leaf cutout showing the background of the planes camouflage. That is what I took to be the green on 398 if JEJ's memory was correct, green meaning raf dark green. I think you miss the idea of personalizing your vehicles, this was not a mandated insignia from high command. It was a localized affectation initially, and obviously as borne out by pictorial evidence, never adopted service wide.
 good luck
 Paul


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Big_guy on June 23, 2009, 03:17:24 PM
Edgar, please,

Would you mind dialing down the inflammatory language?  Implying Johnny Johnson was a liar is not what I said; lying means that he was deliberately hiding something, and nobody here thinks that.

I'm sure there's other examples where non-(insert nationality here) commanded (insert nationality here) units and embraced his units' emblems, simply as a part of good military leadership.  Johnny Kent was Canadian, and, as a Wing Commander, carried the Polish Wing badge on his personal aircraft, even to the point of having it painted on top of his own maple leaf badge (which, coincidentally, appears to have been green with a black outline!). A good leader doesn't deliberately distance himself apart from his subordinates, even on something as trivial as a simple badge of which his troops are proud.

I'm willing concede the possibility that a simple stencil over the camouflage could have been used for some of these leaf markings; as was noted in a previous post, because of the films in use and the choice of filters a photographer had, it is difficult to discern the tones in some photos as being red, green, Dark Green, or something else. It just seems natural that the crews would have embraced elements of the same marking they were seeing on the RCAF ensigns, etc., on display around their units. 

And now I'm off to dig through my Bracken books to study this some more....

Cheers,

Steve Sauvé
Ottawa, Canada


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Editor on June 23, 2009, 04:40:49 PM
Dana Bell once mentioned that the recollections of veterans with regard to colours of their aircraft cannot be generally relied upon without further verification. I was aware of the alleged JEJ letter about the leaf being green when drawing my profiles. I still opted to go with red (however, it is easy to change :) because I didn't treat his as a definitive statement (and, shall I say, red looks more attractive :)

Trying to verify the green leaf hypothesis; a number of questions may be evaluated.

1. Did the entire unit/wing of JEJ used the leaf emblem. Was it intended as RCAF emblem rather than unit one?

The previous analysis seems to imply that the emblem was RCAF rather than unit/individual. This would strongly support the red leaf theory and in my mind, it remains to be demonstrated that the emblem wasn't intended as a generic Canadian national marking to contradict it.

2. Was the emblem designed as white stencil only, or two-colour one involving the use ot 2 stencils?

This, I guess is the hard one... anybody's guess. Would mean that although the emblem was intended to be red, it was applied as simplified white-outline only.
On a general note, national markings (Polish checkerboards or Czech tricolours being an example) were usually applied with care and therefore multi-colour. I can't remember seeing any of these being applied without full complement of colours.

3. Could JEJ have chosen to have a green emblem to distinguish himself from the rest of the unit?
I guess there could be personal reasons for this, possibly needs to be explored further.

The last question is how the green leaf idea came about in the first place back at the time when Airfix Spitfire IX was issued. It could be either some knowledge (interviews with the pilots?) or an assumption (leaves are green!). The level of research in Profile Publications, Airfix kits etc. was generally not up to the current standards, but maybe there was more to the reasoning behing the green which hasn't yet surfaced in this thread.

/Martin


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: vingtor on June 27, 2009, 10:45:20 PM
The green on the engine cowling a darker shade perhaps?

Paul Lucas has some interesting thoughts about early Spitfire Mk.IX colours in the July issue of Model Aircraft Monthly, including EN398.

Anyone ??

Nils


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: SMF144 on December 12, 2009, 08:06:53 PM
To further  what Steve Sauve and Paul have said, I corresponded with the late Bob Morrow about this particular issue and here is what he had to say: “In 1942 we, 402 City of Winnipeg Squadron, were re-equipped with Spitfire Mk-Vbs and we happily left our Hurricane bombers behind. In our enthusiasm we wanted to look as smart and up to date as possible. The answer was the maple leaf. After some trial we settled on a 9” diameter white background with a red maple leaf in the center, except for bomber command who objected to the white and settled for a dark blue instead. “
Now, a Postagram issued by Headquarters, Bomber Command on 21 November 1942, states the following: Emblem for R.C.A.F. Squadrons. The following distinguishing marking has been approved for all aircraft of R.C.A.F. Overseas Squadrons – An emblem consisting of a circular disc of 8” diameter with ½” outer roundel of dark blue and R.A.F. blue centre in which is inserted a maple leaf in red. These emblems will be worn on the port side of the fuselage forward of the leading edge.  This instruction also shows up in a Postagram issued by Air Ministry to everyone and their brother, even the USAAF, dated 19 November 1942.
This instruction was then repeated to the squadrons in No.6 Group R.C.A.F. by W/C J.E. Fauquier, in a memo dated 6 January 1943, who added “It is requested that immediate action be taken to have these emblems inserted on all aircraft in R.C.A.F. squadrons.”
As for Neil Robinson’s article on JEJ’s EN398, I was not impressed with the profile by John Freeman. He simply copied the one from Robert Brackens book. Have you ever seen a sailor, let alone, Popeye wearing a yellow shirt? Somehow I doubt that and the reason it is yellow? Quite simply the late Ron Lowry wanted to add a little bit of colour; just as he added the yellow outline to the code letters which it never had. And while we are on the subject, what I find interesting is the variation of the size of the maple leaf or the white background on AE+B and JE+J.  Another point about AE+B. In the picture with Ian Keltie, you will note that the outer .303s have been removed. Did JE+J do this? Dunno.
 
Stephen M. Fochuk


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: kaysersoze on January 21, 2010, 02:59:21 PM
i am in the process of doing EN398 in the 1/32 kit from tamiya. my question is how accurate the painting of the model is, on the previous page?
reason i ask, is that it looks the most convincing ive seen from the B+W pictures ive seen.


Title: Re: JEJ's EN398 - How it actually looked.
Post by: Big_guy on January 22, 2010, 12:54:21 AM
The only comment I'd make is that the maple leaf badge carries the current Canadian flag maple leaf, which is not correct for a WW II aircraft.  There's lots of photos around showing typical leaf shapes for Spitfires.