Very interesting thread. A few general thoughts intended to be of contextual use - and corrections to those who know more than me on Harvards et al welcome.
Gunny, you're going to have to start thinking British a bit! (Colours...
) More seriously, the context is that Britain set the agenda for the Commonwealth (British Empire & Dominions) at the start of the war (rather like the DOD) and each country of the Commonwealth followed British expectations to some degree initially, the expectation being that there would be commonality in war service. However as the war progressed, each Commonwealth country's aircraft schemes tended to diverge in their own directions, based on needs and availability. So RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF, SAAF, IAF, and RAF schemes have common grounds, but different details or overall 'look'. Likewise theatres dictated differences even within a national air force, meaning RAAF and RAF Kittyhawks in N Africa looked alike, while RNZAF and RAAF Kittyhawks in the Pacific were easily distinguished.
So - I don't
know, but I'd expect early W.W.II RCAF colours and markings would be expected to confirm to RAF standards. As the war progressed, US equipment, nomenclature and details began to become more common in Canadian aircraft in Canada, less so elsewhere in the Commonwealth for obvious reasons.
One detail I'm not clear on is that the letter-number serial series (a0000, aa000 etc.) was for RAF (and RN FAA) equipment initially. Australia had a completely different system, but ended up with British serialed aircraft, alongside Australian. Canada I think (Canadians help here!) started W.W.II with British related serials, but went to numeral only, often four digit serials, as depicted on the aircraft, though these were often written in paperwork as 'RCAF 1234', obviously to avoid confusion with other numbers, though not applied as such.
Often RAF serials are written 'AJ-123' or 'AJ 123' but should be read and applied as 'AJ123'.
The French serial system was completely different again, and so the 'AJ000' allocation would date to the diversion to RAF / RCAF orders, and
not any earlier - correction welcome.
gunnyperdue wrote:
What I'd really like is a spec, or reference to one that I can lay my hands on for the paint colors. I can't find a spec from NAA for the color (there are specs available for marking placement and other things, even for the RAF).... A dated photo, or a spec, would confirm whether the airplane was delivered in Yellow or Silver and I would very much like to have a spec to use as a reference.
Here's an assumption. If given an AJ000 series number the Harvard may well have been painted to RAF (British Air Ministry) supplied colour specifications. And for our Canadians - When did the RCAF specify colours to NAA? Did they? Were there differences to RAF specs?
gunnyperdue wrote:
In the Ohlrich/Ethell book there is a picture of two AJ's supposedly at the Inglewood ramp prior to delivery... B&W but appear to be yellow and the caption says as much. I've seen a photo of AJ832 in cammo, and in Smith's book there is a color shot of AJ832 in cammo over silver (caption says its a Mk IV). There is a photo in one of these books of AJ838 in cammo, supposedly in the MTO in 1944.
No 'MTO' for the Commonwealth, it's just the Mediterranean, or North Africa, Italy etc.
(These comments are unimportant in discussion, but if searching, you'll never find anything useful on RAF Harvards under 'MTO colors', where
North Africa Harvard colo
urs will pick up the right online refs.)
Locally here John Rayner operates a Harvard in North African colours as a 3 Squadron RAAF example (it's a bit of an inside joke as 'Australia never operated Harvards' - except for three in N Africa.) John's machine has changed serials on occasion, but includes AJ845.
Now in North Africa, while the
pattern of camouflage was the same as the northern European 'Temperate' scheme, the
colours are different; here Sand, Mid Stone and Azure Blue. So care with black and white images there!
Also the North African scheme would (here) be a repaint of a temperate scheme, and often the stencils not re-applied.
gunnyperdue wrote:
I would very much like to have the font used, as it looks different than standard USAAF fonts, and there aren't many markings as such on the outside of the airplane.
If painted for the RAF, as said earlier it would've been given RAF spec font, and lots of smallish stencils for maintenance. Over to the Canadians for if that applies to RCAF machines.
Quote:
A note about designations: In modern military aircraft manufacture the block number denotes major changes within the basic design..... F-16C-30, or -50denote major changes in engine and avionics, as well as an order batch. NAA used the block numbers as order batches and although there was some customer variation in spec within the block but predominately the block conformed to a particular over arching model designation....
Academic but interesting! Seems to me that the Block system was and pretty much remains a US or US sphere of influence approach. As you've noted, the Commonwealth used Mark and sub mark as type and to a degree fit designators. Apparently, though the Block System dates to W.W.II - I hadn't realised:
Quote:
(8) Block Number: Block numbers are not part of the official MDS designation, and their use is optional to the various DOD services. In fact, block numbers are used for some production aircraft (e.g. the F-15) but not all. Block numbers were introduced by the U.S. Army Air Force in World War II to distinguish between minor sub-variants of a specific aircraft variant, and were originally assigned in steps of five (1, 5, 10, 15, ...), with the gaps being intended to be used for modifications after production. This was also the rule for block numbers as defined in the first issue of the current designation system in 1962. The current AFI 16-401(I), however, defines block numbers as optional and doesn't state any rules for their actual application. In fact, there are several aircraft types where the block numbers were assigned in strict sequence from 1 up, leaving no gaps. It also seems that the USAF doesn't generally use the "dash-number" nomenclature any more, e.g. the latest B-2A update is generally referred to as "B-2A Block 30" and not "B-2A-30".
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... craft.htmlTo put it another way (though your summary's excellent, too) the manufacturer will have a designation system, different customers different designations for the same type, and thus x, y and z types from different paperwork can be 'the same' aircraft type.
All interesting stuff, good luck with the repaint.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
