The Magazine of the Manchester Aviation MAVAS Art Society

Issue 109 – June 2021

“Into the Night” The original painting by Chris Stone Oils on 26” x 16” stretched linen canvas

EDITORIAL

The front cover image is a detail from an oil painting entitled “Into the Night" by member across the pond, Chris Stone. It is an excellent portrayal of a Lightning F.2A code “J” of 19 Sqn piloted by the owner of the picture - Air Chief Marshal (retired) Sir William Wratten – who served on that squadron as a young flight lieutenant at RAF Gutersloh in Germany during the latter half of the 1960s.

In order to fit the format of the magazine cover, Chris kindly allowed me to crop the horizontal, and extend the vertical dimensions of his painting (full painting shown above). Of necessity this has an impact on the composition of the original picture, which has the aircraft entering the picture from ‘stage right’’ with a good part of the sky brightening in the sunset towards the west and an occasional star showing through. Nevertheless, the image still conveys pleasing reflections and shadows on the fuselage, and the phenomenal power of the twin Rolls Royce Avon engines as they propel the Lightning on its take-off run into the night.

On a more general topic, your Editor thanks those members – and personal friends – who have provided material for the magazine bank. We simply could not continue without these regular inputs

Keep up the good work Peter

Published on the 1st Thursday in March, June, September and December

P.2

CONTENTS

Front Cover – Bae Lightning F.2A by C. Stone 1

Editorial 2

Contents 3

Old Master Revisited – by P. W. Grove 4

Guess What – by P. G. Nield 6

Journey`s End – by D. F. Steeden 7

Aviation Art – Putting Them in the Picture – by K. Woodcock 8

Scratch Built Models – by S. Markland 15

Dave Bates – by P. G. Nield 19

Jackaroo`s Homecoming – by R. J. Rumbold 20

In the Pink – by C. J. Thompson 23

Library Update 26

Diary Dates and Covid-19 Consequences 27

Rear Cover – Paintings by D. Bates 28

P.3

OLD MASTERS REVISITED

When your magazine editor was gently browbeating me into producing a further article, we talked about writing another piece about one of my paintings, why I painted it, how it was put together and so on. Whilst I was quite happy to do this, I thought it might be quite interesting to pick a painting by a proper artist, given that they frequently pack more storytelling, subtlety, compositional tricks and intellectual contemplation into a painting than even my picture of a film star driving a Porsche. I’ve picked a painting by Gainsborough called “Mr. and Mrs. Andrews”. It is in the National Gallery and is looked upon as a beautiful depiction of England’s serene rural landscape.

It was painted by Thomas Gainsborough around 1750 and shows a recently married couple, with a view of the countryside that their two families owned and which the wedding brought into their joint ownership. Both are young (she is only 18) but clearly well to do, and Robert Andrews may well have gone to school with Gainsborough. It was one of Gainsborough’s early portraits and was unusual in combining portraiture and landscape. However, there are a number of things that are a bit odd about it. Gainsborough was the greatest portraitist of his day but was frequently rude about his sitters (if not to their faces). In this case he seemed to let his feelings show in his painting of Mrs Andrews’ face. She has a rather shrewish look that doesn’t seem to bode well for her husband, an outcome which is also suggested by the gathering dark clouds in the background. He seems a pleasant but not particularly bright huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ type who hasn’t realised what he’s in for. At least his dog seems to love him. P.4

Another odd feature is that he is dressed in scruffy, pheasant shooting gear whilst she is in her best silk frock. The oak tree in front of which they posed is still standing so it’s possible to locate exactly where on the estate they were painted. Their original house also still exists and was positioned facing the couple, directly behind where Gainsborough stood. So it looks as if she has emerged from the house to sit for the painting, whilst Robert has just returned from his hunting. This difference in appearance suggests a significant difference in personalities.

Gainsborough had other reasons for his antipathy. He had a natural sympathy for the rural poor. The land in the painting, of which the Andrews were so proud, had only recently been removed from common use and transferred to powerful landowners by the Enclosures Act, impoverishing hundreds of local peasants and farm workers.

Mr. Andrews was a modern farmer, as the painting shows a series of furrows in the foreground that were apparently produced by the revolutionary new seed drill (see left). This introduced a level of mechanisation in farming that would serve to further demonstrate his wealth but would also lead to the loss of many farming jobs.

It seems clear that Gainsborough accepted the commission for the painting whilst sneaking into the picture elements that suggested his disapproval of the couple.

P.5

The last curiosity of the painting is that isn’t actually finished. In Mrs. Andrews’ lap is a blank space where something seems to have been omitted and the canvas is showing through.

One convincing argument, by the critic Waldemar Januszczak, is that Gainsborough planned to paint a cock pheasant (there seems to be a feather already painted in her hand). It seems logical, as Mr. Andrews has obviously been hunting and way well have handed a trophy to his wife. However, Gainsborough possibly had an additional motive. In Dutch painting (very popular in England) a dead cock bird in the grip of a woman symbolised that woman’s dominance over her (hen-pecked) husband. There’s a certain amount of double-entendre here that works equally well in Dutch.

For whatever reason, the painting was never finished and remained out of sight for many years. It only entered public view following a local auction of assorted house contents in 1927. It was spotted and bought by the National Gallery and has been on display ever since. Whether Gainsborough ever received payment for the work is unknown.

Peter W. Grove GUESS WHAT

Well, here we go again but first congratulations to the winners of the last “Guess What” who identified the Gloster E1/44, affectionately named “Gormless” by test pilot Bill Waterton. They were, respectively, Len Sakowicz, then Ged Terry from Bae Systems and finally our very own Roger Rumbold.

The latest challenge is this very elegant flying boat from the mid Testing, testing, one, two, three 1920s and can be summed up in So many built - just one of me the words of a little poem, left. Open the valve to start the show There is only one answer chaps, so And off in a puff of steam I go be very specific ……….

P.6

JOURNEY`S END

Born in Bundaberg in 1892, Bert Hinkler was an Australian pioneering aviator and inventor. He served as a gunner in the R.N.A.S. and, after WW1, he worked for a time at A. V. Roe in Southampton. In 1931, having already made several record breaking flights, Hinkler set off from Canada in his recently locally acquired Puss Moth CF-APK on yet another epic flight. He flew firstly from Canada to New York and then on to the West Indies, Venezuela, Guyana and Brazil before crossing the South Atlantic, landing at London Air Park on 8th December, 1931. He became the first person to fly solo across the South Atlantic and for this he was awarded the Royal Aero Club Gold Medal, the Seagrave Trophy, the Johnson Bert Hinkler`s DH.80A Puss Moth at Memorial Prize and London Air Park, December, 1931 the Britannia Trophy for the most commendable flying performance of the year.

Unfortunately, Hinkler lost his life in CF-APK in January 1933 when, after leaving London Air Park, he was crossing the Alps in an attempt to break C. W. A. Scott`s record to Australia of 8 days 20 hours. He came down in Tuscany and the cause was attributed to turbulence leading to flutter and subsequent wing failure.

The painting was done to commemorate Hinkler`s remarkable achievement. I chose a monochrome palette for this pen and watercolour painting as I thought it the most appropriate to depict this historical event. To the initial pen and ink sketch I applied a very loose overall background wash. This was left to totally dry before a second was applied which gave additional form. The painting was finished off with the addition of strong tonal contrast including a deep shadow under the wing. Splatter was applied to create additional texture to the foreground. I feel I have achieved my aims with the finished piece. D. F. Steeden

P.7

PUTTING THEM IN THE PICTURE

“Them”, of course, refers to either male or female figures which can be introduced into an aviation scene. They can bring that extra dimension to any painting and allows us, as artists, to convey some emotion, which is often lacking in aircraft paintings. Just to be clear, we are not talking about the pilots nestling behind their cockpit windscreens but full length figures. The human form can create an empathy with the viewer in addition to giving an indication of scale when compared with an aircraft subject. Some flying hardware can be much larger than they Diminutive de Havilland Vampire being fuelled up appear in those air to air photographs, whilst others can be surprisingly small as demonstrated in the accompanying photos. It is only by actual visual comparison on the ground that their proportions can be appreciated. Adding some ground crew or pilots to a painting can therefore give a realistic and authentic indication of their appearance and size. The natural inclination when adding figures to an aviation subject is to position them on the ground but they can often enhance a scene when standing on the wings or fuselage.

However, before even thinking about adding figures to a painting, it is vital that any artist has a fundamental knowledge of the proportions of the human form and its range of movements. The illustration in this article gives an indication of Giant Republic F-105. Yet single engined the relative measurements and proportions which are guidelines only and not hard and fast rules.

P.8

2 X HEAD HEIGHT BALANC E LINE HEAD HEIGHT IS 1/8 OF FULL HEIGHT

APPROX. 10% MORE THAN HEAD HEIGHT

Human Proportions using head height

Every human figure is, of course, individual and will vary slightly. You will notice that an adult male figure is shown the female figure being generally smaller and having slightly different proportions, apart from the more obvious variations. A child has a different head/height ratio which varies

P.9

with age. To help drawing and painting figures in active poses an artist’s mannequin can be used. The traditional wooden ones are a bit clunky and have been used for far too many years, being rather restricting and limited in their scope, apart from only vaguely Fully adjustable Mannequin conveying a human likeness. However, there are now relatively small plastic mannequins available which are fairly inexpensive with both male and female examples being produced. They adopt extremely realistic poses and can be used for a great variety of quite difficult activities as can be seen in the image illustrated. They are produced in the Far East and are intended for artists illustrating manga work, a very popular Japanese genre. That indicates that they are of somewhat and heroic proportions but can be easily adapted. A photograph of one attempting to open a mini-tin of modelling paint is shown to give an idea of scale and demonstrate its ability to further increase knowledge on this subject there is a plethora of books on anatomy, drawing the figure, and photographic reference books, for example, many of which are over- technical or just plain inadequate for our needs. What is needed initially is just basic guidance. Photographic reference books are fine, and probably the most famous of these is Eadweard Muybridge’s “The Human figure in Motion” with mostly nude males, females and children seen moving progressively in a variety of actions, running, walking, climbing steps, etc. and presented almost like a cartoon strip. Another book is the “Illustrators’ Figure Reference Manual”, which is useful in having high, low and normal viewing points for the same range of posed figures, but as a production from America it has a number of clothed Example of typical ground crew operations figures which will

P.10

have no relevance for the majority of artists – e.g., gangster carrying violin case!

However, for those artists aspiring to go beyond the act of just copying photographs and really start to creatively design busy scenarios, I would suggest another book. “Figure Drawing without a Model” by Ron Tiner contains the basic details of proportions but also a huge number of gestural sketches showing figures of all shapes and sizes in a variety of clothing plus examples of facial details and expressions.

All artists frequently use their own cameras/phones for reference and it is very easy these days to casually snap people carrying out their daily business whether it be shopping or undertaking some repairs, which are often useful. So next time you go to an aviation museum or an airshow, make sure you don’t just take photos of the aircraft or wait for ground crew/staff/spectators to move out of shot before Multiple examples of standing postures pressing the button. These individuals can be just as interesting and might just provide some food for thought when composing that next masterpiece.

Having now explained about the human form, the next point to consider is clothing. The services and their uniforms/colours will need to be researched thoroughly to ensure the authenticity for particular seasonal or Crew show highlights on waterproof clothing

P.11

geographic locations (desert, winter, Vietnam, etc) and the contemplated era. Pilots’ helmets, goggles and equipment have varied a great deal through the years so it is also vital to have these correct for the proposed timescale.

Any artist wanting to depict scenes prior to colour photography will often find it necessary to refer to coloured paintings and illustrations in magazines and books, but beware of the increasing use of digitally coloured black and white photographs, which may or may not have been comprehensively investigated by the colourist.

Folds and creases are very important when painting figures. When looking at your daily newspaper or monthly magazine, look beyond the personnel and Standing postures, civilian clothes, hats, folds and creases their faces. Study how clothes hang on a person and how the fabric folds when in different activities. Analyse figures kneeling, bending, running, lifting, etc. to look at how these movements affect their clothing. I have attached some typical aeronautical photos which include figures for assessing the structure of the human form and its attitudes, but also observe the clothing. Art is mostly about observing and absorbing visual information, not just brushwork and technique.

Some examples of my own work show how they can be integrated into a composition and provide either a Mother and son - background figures add interest

P.12

primary or complementary focus. The first is a commissioned pre-war Croydon scene with mother and son being the main focus. A catalogue of 1930s fashion was used to help with the lady’s attire and the young lad’s obvious excitement is shown by him pointing at the overflying HP42. Note that the body weight has been shifted on to the right legs and that a low viewpoint allows the figures to be large and take centre stage.

The second painting shows a totally imagined crash scene. I was keen to produce something that recognised the importance of the ground crews during WW 2 but outside their US 8th Air Force B-24 crash landing usual ”fixing or maintenance” routine. The snow was chosen deliberately to show the clear path of the stricken aircraft and was useful in adding the footsteps of the running figures. I was determined to show a lot of movement to emphasise the urgency of the situation and create an emotive composition in spite of it being essentially a generic scene

Again, with the group of DH Moth aircraft, it is a scene from imagination. I chose to use an elevated viewpoint to allow the large variety of aircraft to be show individually without being blocked by the foreground aircraft.

Flying Club Moth miscellany

P.13

Having all these very similar types could easily become boring even with their different colour schemes so it was imperative that I introduced figures to create more interest. Almost all are active in their own group and can provide a talking point or focus for the viewer.

My final image is a typical scene deliberately selected to demonstrate action. The pilot is showing a good turn of speed to contribute to the exceptional urgency of the composition, leaning forward and with both feet off the ground, whilst the ground crewman is facing into the action of his own Spitfire with his starter.

Supermarine Spitfire scramble

So please try and do some figure drawing. Far more is learnt by making quick, gestural sketches focusing on the proportions rather than striving for complete accuracy. Recognisable features and details can always be added later to a sketch which has correct proportions.

Keith Woodcock FGAvA ASAA GMA

P.14

SCRATCH BUILT MODELS

By Sam Markland

Firstly, my thanks to Peter for allowing a past member to contribute to your esteemed magazine. Having always been interested in aviation my subjects and medium have varied widely and over the past two years I became curious as to the construction of A/C from the wood wire and cloth era. Some of you may know of a plastic model manufacturer called ‘Wingnut Wings’, the pet hobby of Peter Jackson of ‘Lord of the Rings’ fame. He, having built full size flying replicas of many WW1 A/C in New Zealand, used this knowledge to produce very detailed 1/32 scale kits of the same, one of which – a Bristol Fighter – was presented to me for my birthday by my family in 2018. Having built the kit, I realised that scratch building one was not beyond the realms of possibility so research began on a DH.1. Plans were an obvious starting point and this is where things come to light to challenge the brain. Many publications have 3-view plans but few include an essential item, that being fuselage and wing cross sections. Other little annoyances surface in the way the plan is published. Many original plans have the scale written on them but the publisher chooses to shrink them to fit the page, neglecting to amend the indicated scale. The only way to check is to identify a full size dimension e.g., wing span and then measure the plan and do the maths. An outline has now been established and requires fleshing out. I have found many sources of information very helpful but I will not bore you with them all. A few, however, are worthy of mention. 1. The Aeroplane Magazine contains Data Profiles with excellent cutaway drawings by ‘artists’ such as Clark, Munger, Weil et al. Their internal detail enables line drawings to be deciphered and proportions confirmed. 2. Monographs such as the ‘Windsock Datafile’ series of booklets contain enough information in one place to build your model including colour profiles and markings not discernible from contemporary photos. 3. Internet image galleries can contain excellent reference images, both contemporary and modern. 4. Plastic model instruction sheets (Wingnut Wings especially) are published on the net and give expanded views of how the model A/C is put together (Cheating???). I chose to build whole wings fully ‘covered’ and ‘skeletal/part skeletal’ fuselages to add a dimension of interest not offered in mainstream kits.

P.15

Materials and method

One of the first things to strike me was the slender aerofoil section of biplane wings. What would give the strength for such a span at say 1/24 scale, a range of 14“ to 30” depending on the subject. I chose sheet aluminium of gauges ranging from 1mm to 2.5mm. The wing outline is transferred to the sheet, cut out on the band saw and then rolled over a broom handle to produce the basic aerofoil. The leading and trailing edges are then chamfered down top surface only, using the disc sander. This enhances the profile curve giving strong but slender edges. The aileron fore and aft edges are now cut and the hinge line scribed to allow them to be realistically bent into drooped and raised position respectively. To represent the wing underlying structure, masking tape was placed on glass and cut into 2mm strips with a steel rule and scalpel. These strips are stuck to the wing represent ribs and riblets which show through subtly after covering. The wing is then covered using fabric sticky tape lain fore and aft and trimmed back to the neatest full rib with the scalpel. Next, the rib top tapes are laid over the top of the ribs to complete the effect.

The photos above are of DH 1 wings and the cockpit tub/nacelle and engine come next. I chose plastic facia board to carve out the whole tub but then only used the front section so that the rear could be skeletal to show the internal

P.16

detail. Once the main bulkheads were in, the undercarriage needed constructing. My wife is now minus one of her wire coat hangers and the yard brush handle is 1” shorter. Those of you of a certain age will recognise the coiled telephone handset wire masquerading as wheel tyres. The fuel tank was again shaped from plastic facia board and covered using wine bottle top tin foil. The foil is soft and malleable and once one side is covered with double-sided sticky tape can be applied to the plastic block. A rivet wheel leaves the desired effect when a wash is applied afterwards. The instrument panel, though scarcely populated was made by punching out dials from suitably sized photos and using brass wire/washers for the bezels, knobs from round headed brass panel pins. The engine is a Renault V-8 of 70hp, the main block is carved from plastic with cylinders made from plastic tube wound with fuse wire and the cylinder heads from brass panel pins. The exhaust is from Airfix kit waste sprue which incidentally has it’s outlet facing forwards. Cockpit decking/cover panel is from lithographic shim.

The lower wing was attached to the upper wing again using coat hanger wire, holes being drilled in both upper and lower wings for the wire struts. All 8 struts were fitted and then held in a jig at the correct rake and perpendicular in the fore and aft plain before the glue set. The tail booms were bent and when brought together aft formed the rudder post and tailplane support. To give the struts their correct aerodynamic shape,

P.17

card with double sided tape was cut to shape and wrapped around the wire and then stained with wood dye. The undercarriage and inter boom struts were similarly treated.

To use a naval term, the running rigging and standing rigging were made from two different gauges of anodised copper wire. When unwound from the bobbin the wire was tensioned which left it straight and more importantly self supporting, removing the unsightly ‘sag’ which can occur with other materials. The torsion links at each end of the wires were depicted by short lengths of aluminium tube, incidentally the only material for which money was paid! The wire was cut to length and two tubes threaded to the middle out of the way of the glue which was placed at the strut/wing joint ready to receive the wire. Once in place the tube was slid along the wire and into the excess glue thus making a secure weld.

The colour scheme is of a training unit, the paint used was left over magnolia masonry paint for the raw linen undersides and a mix of every

left over acrylic in my box to form the upper surface brown. This brown is in real life a constantly deteriorating shade of the factory green which was not stable and faded to the dominant pigment in the mix over time.

P.18

I then did a painting of the broadly similar single seat DH.2. As with the DH.1 model, this was done using mixed media with the background in masonry paint mixed with blue ink and the aircraft in airfix acrylic model paint left over from a starter kit. I hope you found all this of interest and not too nerdy. If there is something I have omitted due to familiarity I apologise in advance. Sam

DAVE BATES

Regretfully, member Dave Bates resigned from MAvAS at the recent AGM on 4th March. Dave, as we all know has been suffering from significant health issues for some considerable time and, in the end, the decision to leave was forced upon him. It is a salutary reminder that time passes quickly when we consider that Dave joined MAvAS on 2nd June 1987 – 34 years ago! His work has always been an example to others in its imagination and scope, as can be seen in the two paintings alongside and his contribution to MAvAS over the years cannot be overstated. We have also enjoyed our many Committee meetings at Dave and Joyce`s. Thanks for everything Dave - we wish you well at your new home in Failsworth and hope that we shall be able to stay in touch. P.19

THE JACKAROO`S HOMECOMING

The Story Behind The Picture – by R.J. Rumbold

Without doubt, the Jackaroo is my favourite aeroplane of all time. Growing up in Andover, north-west , in the 1950s we were surrounded by a number of airfields that were being used for test flying, training and aircraft development including Chilbolton (Supermarine Swift, Folland Midge and Gnat), RAF Andover (Sikorski R4 and the The Thruxton Jackaroo RAFs first helicopter school), Middle Wallop (home of the then-recently reconstituted Army Air Corp) and Boscombe Down (Empire Test Pilots’ School and the Aircraft and Armaments Experimental Establishment). Many of the engineers working at these sites, and their families, lived in and around Andover and as a result it is small wonder that many of us kids were “air-minded”.

Imagine the interest and excitement when we learned that a new home- grown aeroplane was being designed and built almost on our doorstep at Thruxton, a former US wartime bomber base 20 minutes away by bike, and one of our friends had been taken on as an apprentice there too.

We avidly followed the progress reports in the local press during 1956/7 and our apprentice friend kept us up to date with workshop news. The Jackaroo was to be a 4-seat training and touring aircraft with export potential and it could also be converted to a crop sprayer. It was based on war-surplus DH 82a Tiger Moths, which were cheap and plentiful in those days and it was confidently expected that hundreds would be sold! We would sometimes see a Jackaroo over the town on “test flights” and on Sundays we would cycle out to Thruxton to nose around the hangars, unauthorised and unescorted naturally – security? What security?

Fast forward to May 1963 and after getting “the chop” from the College of Air Training at Hamble with 30 hours on Chipmunks, I once more cycled regularly to Thruxton to complete my PPL with the Wiltshire School of Flying and attempt to revive my thwarted plans to become an airline pilot. There was a choice of aircraft – one of their Jackaroos at £4-17-6

P.20

(£4.87) an hour or their sole Chipmunk for £6-10-0 (£6.50) an hour (but only dual until I had 100 hours in my logbook!). As I was unwaged at the time and my savings were a bit scant there was no real choice – the Jackaroo - but it was love at first flight.

After a 40 minute “conversion flight” (they now call it “differences training”) and a check flight with the CFI, John Heaton, they trusted me enough to let me go solo and this was almost as exhilarating as my Chipmunk First Solo some six weeks earlier.

After a week of intensive cross-country flying practice, I was dispatched on my Qualifying Cross Country to Shoreham, on the Sussex coast, in Jackaroo G-AOIR, returning via Portsmouth Airport – then a grass airfield but now a shopping and leisure complex. The round trip took just over 3 hours, at a stately 60 knots.

That summer, I flew whenever I could scrape together enough cash for half an hour’s flying – no car and still cycling to and from Thruxton, - and on one memorable occasion I took my father for his first flight since his original “five bob flip” with Alan Cobham’s Flying Circus in the 1920s. My log book shows around 16 hours in six different Jackaroos that summer – halcyon days.

The Picture

The next time I saw Jackaroo G-AOIR was 44 years later, in 2007, at a charity airshow event on the farm strip, at Baxterly near Coventry, where it was then based.

My painting in acrylics is essentially a portrait of it coming in to land. At that time it was actually finished in blue and silver, but I chose to put it in the red and silver that I remembered (and preferred) from its days with the Wiltshire School of Flying.

The Aeroplane

The Thruxton Jackaroo was a brave attempt to create a home-grown training and touring aircraft in the early post-war years when there was an embargo on the import of new light aircraft from the USA, and a large surplus of cheap but aging pre-war and war-surplus light aircraft and trainers such as Tiger Moths, , Proctors and a smattering of Piper Cubs and Aeroncas.

The Wiltshire School of Flying at Thruxton Aerodrome, about seven miles from Andover in Hampshire, was run by Squadron Leader J E Doran- Webb. Encouraged by the performance of the DH 83 Fox Moth, which had

P.21

many parts in common with the DH 82a Tiger Moth wedded to a new fuselage capable of carrying up to four passengers and the pilot, he believed that a practical four seat touring and training aircraft could be constructed economically by re-using many parts from the Tiger Moth, which were plentiful and cheap in the early 1950s.

Doran-Webb founded the Jackaroo Aircraft Company in around 1956 and commissioned the design of what would ultimately be known as the “Thruxton Jackaroo”, a four seat cabin biplane that could also be readily converted to a crop-sprayer by removing two passenger seats and installing a 270 litre tank. The Jackaroo’s Airworthiness Approval was apparently granted under the description of Modified DH 82a and many parts of the airframe are pure Tiger Moth. Indeed, several Jackaroos were subsequently (and perhaps unfortunately) converted back to Tiger Moths by later owners.

In essence, the Tiger Moth’s rear fuselage was separated at the fabrication joint behind the rear cockpit and a new front fuselage about a foot wider was attached, the resultant fairly abrupt taper giving the Jackaroo its characteristic “tadpole-like” appearance when seen from underneath. The Tiger Moth wings were re-attached to the widened fuselage and wing centre-section and as a result the Jackaroo has a slightly longer wingspan and wider undercarriage track than the original Tiger Moth.

The prototype, G-AOEX, first flew in 1957. Initial projections were anticipating around 100 to be built, with the potential for exports to New Zealand, Australia and India. In the event, only 19 examples were completed, including one by Rollason Aircraft and Engines Limited at Redhill, but an order for a further seven for India was refused an export licence and these were never completed. By 1960, the import embargo was history and “modern” types such as the Piper Tri-Pacer and Colt started to appear in England’s skies. With this, the dream of the Jackaroo conquering the world faded.

The Wiltshire School of Flying secured a contract for conducting Flying Scholarships for the during the 1960s and around 1000 ATC cadets gained their PPLs on Jackaroos. At least one that I know went on to be a pilot with BEA/British Airways, but I eventually became a civil engineer.

There is a short (58 seconds) video on U-Tube showing the Jackaroo in the first year of its life at https://www.britishpathe.com/video/new-crop- duster-four-seater-aircraft. G-AOIR is now owned and operated by Aero Legends at Maidstone, Kent. https://www.aerolegends.co.uk/news/rare-addition-for-aero-legends/

P.22

IN THE PINK – or Why Some Spitfires were Painted Pink.

Living in Essex and being a long-standing member of the Southend Art Club, I was often invited to give talks on art and perform painting demonstrations, however on one occasion I was invited to give a talk on aviation art and so I took along with me a painting that I had recently completed and when I mentioned that I had titled the painting “In the Pink” I noticed the puzzled looks on a number of faces in the audience which prompted me to explain that the reason for using the word ‘Pink’ in the title was because it referred the camouflage colour that was applied to the photoreconnaissance Spitfire that I had depicted in the painting. As expected however, my explanation only seemed to make the situation worse, and I was soon inundated by questions such as “Did you say that the camouflage colour was PINK? And “Surely PINK cannot be considered as a camouflage colour? Then, someone from the back announced “Sorry Charles, but I am afraid to say that you are wrong because I know for a historical fact that throughout WWII, both USAAF and RAF photoreconnaissance aircraft In the Pink shared the same camouflage colour Oils on 16” x 20” Board that was designed for this very purpose by the experts at RAF Benson and that colour was officially named as PRU BLUE”. However, it was the next question that really made me laugh when someone shouted out, “I guess that they used PINK to camouflage aircraft when flying against PINK skies at sunset!”

Having fully expected some sort of confusion and disbelief to arise when I mentioned the words “Pink Camouflage” I had come prepared to explain this conundrum and in doing so I decided that it would be best if I first explaining the reasons and conditions under which PINK was used in place of BLUE as a camouflage colour and then follow it up with the more complicated scientific explanation.

So, I began by assuring the gentleman that he was quite right when he had said that PRU Blue had been created by RAF Benson and had been used successfully by both RAF and USAAF photoreconnaissance aircraft throughout WWII. I then went on to say that although this colour served its purpose very well for aircraft that flew at high altitudes and in good

P.23

weather, as was often the case for most photoreconnaissance missions, it was however quite a different matter when the weather turned bad and low cloud completely obscured the ground targets. These conditions not only forced the photoreconnaissance aircraft to fly low but in most cases to actually fly underneath the cloud base in order to perform their photographic mission and it was under these conditions that pilots discovered to their horror that instead of their PRU Blue acting as camouflage, it now made their aircraft stand out like proverbial sore thumb up against the dark warm cloud base above their heads making them easy targets for the AA gunners on the ground below. This problem was then given top priority by the experts at RAF Benson and after a thorough investigation they discovered that under conditions where light was severely restricted, Smile Please and aircraft were viewed from below Oils on 16" x 20 " canvas and up against a dark low cloud base, it was the colour Pink and not Blue that performed best as a camouflage colour. So, it was this discovery that led to a handful of photoreconnaissance Spitfires being painted Pink and they were reserved to perform their tasks only when the weather conditions so dictated. i.e. When low cloud completely obscured their target.

Having now described the conditions under which Pink was found to be the best camouflage colour to use, I decided that the time had now arrived to bite the bullet and begin outlining to my audience the ‘Science’ and in particular the Physics of Colour and to help me accomplish this difficult task I began reading from a LIFE SCIENCE LIBRARY book that I had brought with me Brothers Without Arms that was titled “LIGHT AND Oils on 36” x 24” canvas VISION, and turning to the chapter headed “The Paradox of Colour” I began reading as follows :-

P.24

“Colour is a paradox. It exists in light, which to human eyes seems colourless. It does not exist in soap bubbles, rainbows, or paint, which appear coloured. The symphony of varied hues we see around us do not mean that we live in a world of coloured objects – it means only that the surface of those objects reflect back a particular portion of the light that is hitting them. Thus, an apple is red because it reflects red light, not because it is itself red. Green leaves are simply reflecting green light”.

After allowing a little time for this science to sink in I then went on to say that with this in mind I hope that we can now understand a lot better why Pink helped to camouflage an aircraft when viewed from below and under poor lighting conditions and up against a dark ‘warm’ Photograph of a Pink Spitfire cloud base, because both the underside of the aircraft and cloud base would look the same dark and warm Pink ’colour’.

I then paused to give it time for what I had read to sink in and because most of this ‘science’ was new to most of the audience discussions continued right up till closing time. However, I will now leave the reader to think about “The Paradox of Colour” and draw his/her own conclusions.

Lastly, before I sign off, I would just like to return to that question that someone in the audience had asked me, “I guess that they used PINK to camouflage aircraft when flying against PINK skies at sunset!”. Now, If we bear in mind what “The Paradox of Colour” tells us, then any aircraft, regardless of its camouflage colour, when viewed up against a PINK sky at sunset would look a dark colourless GREY (Not PINK) simply because the light source is located BEHIND it. I do hope the penny has dropped by now.  Charles Thompson GAvA ASAA

P.25

LIBRARY UPDATE

As members will know, we are privileged to exchange the MAvAS magazine with the corresponding publications of the American Society of Aviation Artists (ASAA), the Canadian Aerospace Artists Association (CAAA), the Guild of Aviation Artists (GAvA) and The Aviation Society (TAS) at Manchester Airport. The hard copy publications, containing a wealth of information, are available for perusal via Hon Sec Peter Nield on a strictly “members only” basis. The latest issues are shown below.

ASAA – V.34/2 Spring `21 CAAA – V.26/2 May 2021

GAvA – Spring 2021 TAS – V.50/5 May 2021

In particular, TAS is a local organisation which offers many possibilities for practising aviation art and has an active Social Evenings calendar.

For more details, visit the TAS website at www.tasmanchester.co.uk

P.26

DIARY DATES – SUMMARY OF COVID-19 CONSEQUENCES

Our last meeting in the Control Tower at Barton was the AGM on 5th March and, at the time of writing (8th May). we still have no idea when we shall be able to revert to the old “normal” way of living – if ever. Lifting of restrictions will take place gradually but, currently, a third wave of the virus is sweeping across Europe and that could easily set matters back in the UK. General opinion seems to be that we should take the days as they come and keep ourselves safe until the bug is under control.

Nevertheless, the Meeting Room in the Tower is booked provisionally through 2021 on Thursdays 14th January, 4th February, 4th March, 1st April, 6th May, 3rd June, 1st July, 5th August, 2nd September, 7th October, 4th November and 2nd December. In normal times, the meetings would run 12-00 noon to 3-00 pm. Barton Contact Number is 0161-789-1362.

Regarding meetings arranged pre-pandemic, we consider these to be postponed rather than cancelled and can only hope that they will take place at some point in the future. These meetings were recorded in the last magazine and are repeated here (with 2020 dates shown) as a continued reminder.

2nd April – “Photography and Models” – P. James 7th May – “Golden Age of Sports Car Racing” – P. Grove 2nd July – “Sketching Outside” – David Steeden 6th August – Watercolour Demo – “Felixstowe F3 at Kalafrana” – O. Jones 3rd Sept – “Drones in Aviation Art” – R. Markman 6th Nov – “Watercolour Demo – “Landscape” – P. Talbot-Greaves 3rd Dec – “Xmas Social Event

Note that our Painting competitions during the pandemic have been conducted electronically and this will continue until further notice. We have already held the “Open” event in February 2021 and the two further events during this year will be :-

3rd June – “Research Aircraft” – Managed by Colin Taylor 7th October – “Floatplanes and Flying Boats” – Managed by, TBA

Other information and updates will be circulated to members as soon as they become available.

Hon Sec :- Peter G. Nield Webmaster :- Len Sakowicz E-mail :- [email protected] E-mail :- [email protected] Tel :- 0161-764-3928 Tel :- 0161-430-3386 Society Website :- www.mavas.co.uk

P.27

Tally Ho! First Lady

The Flying Circus

Co-operation Lindbergh`s Last Lap

Paintings by David Bates

Printed by Bolton Print Systems

Tel :- 01204-26079