Tja..en toen kreeg deze bouw een volledig nieuwe wending. Eentje in de richting van een broodje aap eigenlijk
. Van de drie versie die er op IPMSStockholm stonden was dit de kleurrijkste. En naar het blijkt ook de enige die nooit gevlohgen heeft. U zegt? wel ik ben sinds een jaar ook actief op een engelse modelbouwsite. Aeroscale. En een engelsman heeft daar gereageerd op mijn eindfoto's..
Aan het woord Antoni Lachetti:
"Was it a night fighter or nightmare? Well the nightmare just got worse. I hope you are sitting down because you really are not going to like this. The spitfire never looked like the model. It is a fiction invented by those that prefer making things up to finding things out.
I was never convinced of this scheme, why paint it black and then apply 'look at me, I'm over here' markings? Nor was 41 Squadron a night fighter squadron. No squadron history that I can find makes any mention of them being used in the night fighter role or having black Spitfires. On the contrary, in 1942 they are described as being involved in cross-channel sweeps etc. My suspicions always worsen when, as in this case, there does not seem to be a photograph of the subject of the profile.
As if often the case, I found 'the' photograph when looking for something else.
Not really surprised that it is in the Day Fighter Scheme, not painted black. That is confirmed by Andy Saunder's scrapyard photograph here, which also shows it was named 'Peggy'.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... AF-history
It was shot down on 12th April 1942 during Circus 122, escorting 12 Bostons. It was a bad day for the squadron as they lost no less than four aircraft. Wojtek Matusiak identifies it as W3654, the pilot A van Rood taken PoW.
The small roundels are the type applied experimentally to night fighters and 'C' type roundels did not start to appear until the middle of April 1942, but generally from mid-May. So there is nothing odd about the 'A' type roundels under the wings. The most sensible explanation for the small roundels on the fuselage would be that it was transferred from a night fighter squadron.
The four candidates have the following histories.
W3852 12 MU 14/9/41, 41 Sqn 26/941
W3654 8 MU 7/8/41, 616 Sqn 16/8/41, 129 Sqn 5/10/41, 65 Sqn 31/10/41, 41 Sqn 6/1/42
W3450 8 MU 9/7/41, 111 Sqn 22/8/41, ROS 12/10/41, 129 Sqn 11/10/41, 41 Sqn 3/3/42
BL595 38 MU 9/1/42, 41 Sqn 10/2/42, 81 Sqn 12/2/42
81 Squadron looks like a mistake of some kind as all four failed to return 12/4/42 and it seems that 81 Squadron was 'up north' at that time. Perhaps it was 'on loan' or transferred back but not recorded.
Off the four, two served with a night fighter squadron, W3654, 65 Squadron, and W3450 111 Squadron. As W3450 did not go directly from 111 Squadron to 41 Squadron and has been identified as 'H' we are left W3654. I have to agree with Mr M that W3654 is the most likely identity for 'Peggy'. The photograph has sometimes been identified as AD504 but AD504 was fitted with an early type windscreen and bulbous Rotol spinner. This may explain why the profiles have a spurious Rotol bulbous spinner. "
Op mijn vraag of ik deze text mocht plaatsen hier kreeg ik nog een tweede reactie..:
"Go ahead and post it. It's high time it was debunked. I have a large file of fairy tales like this one and modeling magazines are the worst offenders. You can always build another 'correct' one to show the difference between right and wrong. At least it was a Dutch pilot. Some more imformation can be found in these places.
http://aircrewremembered.com/van-der-stok.html
http://brew.clients.ch/pilotsw.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_van_der_Stok
http://acesofww2.com/netherlands/vanderstok/
http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showth ... t-(-Peter-)-van-Rood-RAFVR-111131"Dat is dan weer wel leuk. Dus wie wil kan een door een nederlander gevlogen Mk Vb bouwen. Ik sla hem voor nu even over. Wellicht later in mijn modelbouwcarriere. Maar om nu nog eens een Mk V te bouwen wordt wat saai.
Jammer. Het was een gaaf model geworden. Nou ja. Heb ik een mooie uitvoering van een Broodje aap vliegtuig staan. Da's nog orgineler..toch?