2014 Typhoon display jet 'special' colour scheme...

[Rhino power]

With 29(R) providing this seasons dispaly jet/pilot, a 'special' colour scheme has been applied to the dispaly jet, hmm....

29 Sqn Typhoon Display Paint Scheme ? FighterControl ? Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=287&t=95468)

-RP

[Tay Cough]

Just needs an extra X and the Aussies can get royalties.

http://www.epa.org.uk/poolshark04/XXXXlogo2.jpg

[Winco]

Is that really the best we can come up with? Sorry, I think it looks dreadful!

[muppetofthenorth]

Cynic in me says that the painting of the canards in that manner means it'll spend more time on the ground at displays showing them than it will be in the air showing what it can do.

[Haraka]

Now I suppose we will soon be off on the XXX=30 not 29 roundabout again.
:ugh:

[MPN11]

ow I suppose we will soon be off on the XXX=30 not 29 roundabout again.

I just resisted :cool:

[snaggletooth]

XXX = 30, not 29 :ok:

Howzatt!

[glad rag]

Pfft not bad for a DIY effort.

[the painter/finisher trade was abolished last year iirc ]

[newt]

XXX............Kiss Kiss Kiss?:ok:

[Dominator2]

I think that the markings on the Typhoon are dreadful and display a lack of proper investment in time and money. How is it that other NATO nations manage to achieve such a high standard for their aircraft paint designs and finishes. I know that the RAF does have somewhere, hidden away, some talented graphic designers who could do the aircraft justice. If this is what the RAF wants to display around the world on it's No1 Fighter aircraft, then I am disappointed.

As regards the TRIPLEX squadron markings, they are not because we all drank Batemans Triplex beer. Explanation below.

Since the late 1920s, the squadron marking has been three (red) Xs (XXX). Since this closely resembles the Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals)
numeral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals) for "29" (XXIX) there is a "traditional" belief among current squadron personnel that this originated as a "misspelling" of the Roman numeral.

Although various versions of the tradition are put forward, the most common explanation is that a mis-understood instruction to ground crew to paint "2 X's in front of the roundel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundel) and IX behind it" meaning "X,X,(roundel), and 'IX' or 'one-X')" resulted in "XX(roundel)'one times' X".

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Won't all that black make it too visible for the primary task?

Anyway, it does look less Luftwaffe than the Line jobs.

[camelspyyder]

You're spending too much time on here now you've retired.

You should come down to the SHIP on a Sunday lunchtime to watch the football and have a pint or 3.

Regards,

CS

[Haraka]

[CODE]Since the late 1920s, the squadron marking has been three (red) Xs (XXX).[/CODE
I know it's April 1st ,however.


Nope. It's simply not true, Sorry.

[Mike51]

File:Siskins of 29.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siskins_of_29.jpg)

[Davef68]

It became three 'X' because that's what would fit on the side of the airframe concerned (Siskin IIRC) - there is a photo of an earlier type (Grebe) with 4 X on the side

[HTB]

Make a comment with confidence and somebody might believe you. However, there's always someone who knows where to find the facts (even if they are only Wikifacts).

That first piccie on the right looks like a Siskin, is described as such and has the three Xs - the text tells us that 11 sqns were equipped with Siskins in the mid-1920s, and it would seem that 29 was one of them.

Sorry Haraka: Nope [what you wrote] it's simply not true.

I have heard the version about XX then one (I) X many years ago when I was based at Scampton on Vs during a visit (fughter affil debrief) to CGY. It sounds as plausible as any other.

Mister B

[Haraka]

It became three 'X' because that's what would fit on the side of the airframe concerned (Siskin IIRC)

and on their later Hawker Demons???
:8

(I'll give you the answer , at least sometimes it was two- one either side of the roundel.)

[Mike51]

Any guesses as to how long 29 will survive before being renumbered as one of the 'lower numered' squadrons now or shortly looking for a home? IX or 12, perhaps?

[Haraka]

For HTB's benefit.
When 29 Sqn (along with other squadrons taking up then unofficial squadron schemes) adopted its"X" 's on its Grebes in the mid '20's the number was indeterminate, the primary marking being a line of diagonal crosses -probably three in total ( not letter X's incidentally ) across the upper wing with some repeated on the fuselage.
As dave f68 pointed out, four of these crosses were certainly marked on some of the Grebes. This fact along I think satisfactorily demolishes the XX, one X fable.
The number of crosses was certainly six across the wing in at least some Siskin IIIas photographed in the late 20's , with the broad chord of that wing allowing them to be made quite sizeable. Three crosses either side of the fuselage roundel was also normal.
Apparently with the introduction of the Bulldog into the squadron in 1932, the number of fuselage crosses dropped down to one either side of the roundel.
As noted a single X has also been photographed either side of the fuselage roundel on a 29 Demon in 1935. which knocks down the myth of XXX having been strictly adopted in the late 20's.
Post WW2 the three crosses either side of the fuselage roundel came to be standard on the fuselage bars of Meteor, Javelin and Lightning etc.
My interest in all this only came about when meeting( and once flying with) 29Sqn in their Lightning days in the 60's .

[HTB]

Not letters:eek:...and there's me thinking all these years that XV sqn was populated by ex V-Force people. Who would have thought, eh?

And what did the Romans ever do for us? Apart from a system of numerals that you need to read very quickly at the end of film or TV programme credits.

Mister B

[P6 Driver]

Here's an opportunity that won't be taken up unless I'm VERY surprised!

To anyone such as WINCO, who think the design is "Dreadful" - what would you have designed that would be better?

Feel free to post your better versions...


(I won't hold my breath though!)

[Background Noise]

A couple of smokewinders would have been nice. :rolleyes:

[Willard Whyte]

P6, paint it gloss white all over. Or matt black with shark's teeth. Camoflage with invasion stripes. Metallic purple with chrome alloy wheels, slammed suspension and a pink fur cockpit. Or, what the hell, Union Jack* the whole damn thing.

Anything's better than the chosen design.

*it's a verb I've invented.

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks for the post. The colour scheme looks good. The RAF will never have the fancy graphics that we've seen elsewhere; they're wonderful to see, but not the MoD's style. The Typhoon there looks great. Fly high, 29.

[Union Jack]

Or, what the hell, Union Jack* the whole damn thing.

You rang?:cool:

Jack

[Permanent Standby]

Utterly uninspiring! It's a good job it makes loads of noise....

It wouldn't make me want to join....again....

[rolandpull]

There are some very nice 'tweaks' to this scheme on the FIGHTERCONTROL website. I believe Squadron Prints submitted some pretty stunning images to the MOD as part of the process.

For me, the current scheme just needs some Daily Telegraph stickers down the side of the jet - to fill in the gap between tail and canards.

[CoffmanStarter]

Sorry ... But someone posted a cracking comment on the RAF Facebook page in response to the scheme ... Made me chuckle :ok:

It's a Mint Job !

http://www.britishcornershop.co.uk/images/large/QWOP2017.jpg

[MAINJAFAD]

I think that the markings on the Typhoon are dreadful and display a lack of proper investment in time and money. How is it that other NATO nations manage to achieve such a high standard for their aircraft paint designs and finishes. I know that the RAF does have somewhere, hidden away, some talented graphic designers who could do the aircraft justice. If this is what the RAF wants to display around the world on it's No1 Fighter aircraft, then I am disappointed.

Well, for starters the RAF don't have painters and finishers anymore, thus the work is contracted out to SERCO thus will cost extra. Also the rules for special markings have to be approved at CinC Air Command level after going though a number of hoops including a working group who's role is to approve camouflage schemes. Also any aircraft that has more than a 25% repaint requires weighting and re-ballasting (if required) as the paint does actually have mass, which of course is now a depth maintenance function and again costs. You could of course totally ignore the rules as one Squadron did and paint an aircraft all over, which in the scheme done, was rumored to have overloaded the aircraft's environmental control systems due to the effects of absorption of more solar/aerodynamic heating (the Camouflage working group were aware of the problem, as it wasn't the first time that that type of scheme had been painted on that aircraft). It was also rumored to have put the aircraft massively out of limits on center of gravity and that wasn't picked up until after it have been flown a few times. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Yes, there are RAF personnel that can do this type of stuff, the best example was this one (which I did play a part in, as it was my Jaguar drawing computer file on which the basic scheme layout was designed (and the original draft schemes looked nothing like what was finally painted). 6 Sqn had to get outside sponsorship to paint it though (and a couple of painters from a certain car company).

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=9566&sid=1b7efd69c82777c3f6c7af0d779c8a14&mode=view

[MAINJAFAD]

Coff/Roland, the rules don't allow sponsorship logos in the design, period. Though the guys who painted the Spotty Jaguar managed to get their company logo in but it was very well hidden (on the outside of the frame).

[Dominator2]

MAINJAFAD,

You seem to have most of the answers so it should not be too difficult to create and introduce a design that we all would be proud of. I'm sure that CinC Air Command and indeed, the whole of the Air Board would love to see the Premier RAF aircraft displayed in a 21st century graphic design and not a 1950s paint job. I know that we got rid of our painters and finishers and so are stuck with a contractor, Serco at present. In my experience there is normally a way to generate goodwill from most reasonable contractors.
Courtney, you state that other nations "fancy graphics" make their aircraft look good but that is not in the MOD's style. Well maybe it is about time that the MOD updated it's style.
It is quite galling to see German, French and Turkish aircraft turned out at a standard to make their personnel and publics proud. I'm tired of the attitude that "we know we are the best" so we don't try very hard. I'm also fed up with hearing all of the reasons why it can't be done rather than inventiveness and cunning to overcome modern day bureaucracy.

[CoffmanStarter]

Mainjafad ...

Love that Jag scheme ... well done you with the original concept :ok:

I do recall a little jape (which I may or may not have been involved in :hmm:) ... In the 70's I think it was Esso that gave out strips of mock bullet holes with every tank of petrol ... One of these said decal sheets ended up on the Boss's Chipmunk strafed across the external front cockpit fuselage wall ... He thought it was highly amusing :)

[MAINJAFAD]

I didn't design the scheme, Aber Ratman did, I did a Jaguar profile for another project and he used it (after I taught him how to use the software that was used to design the scheme on). The original design was just the Fin, spine and drop tanks. The final design was based on the wishes of the OC 6 Sqn at the time and was based on keeping the amount of paint under the 25% limit (Had Aber known that AOC 1 Gp wanted a Pink Gulf War 1 jet as well (there was still one operational GR3 which had taken part in the 1991 conflict at the time and its the only aircraft to be painted in a permanent finish of Desert Pink (all other aircraft ever in that scheme were painted in a temporary ARTF finish)), he may have gone the whole hog on the Jaguar (big cat) camouflage instead of having it look like the outer paint job was peeling off to show what was underneath. A 74 sqn Phantom was painted up in a full tiger scheme in 92, but it never flew in that paint scheme.

The basic problem is that any Typhoon or Tornado in service has to be an operational and deployable airframe, which limits what scheme can be put on the aircraft (and as stated in my first post, there can be unknown effects on aircraft systems caused by what colour the aircraft is painted (the normal schemes will have been trialed first), plus the fact there are major parts of the airframe that cannot be painted (i.e. Radome and aerial covers, etc). The Jaguar scheme was approved because the fleet was already non operational when CinC Strike approved the scheme on 31st March 2007 (it was one of the last actions ever done by a CinC Strike). The Tucano / Hawk boys can get away with it because the aircraft have a 2nd line role only.

As for me doing it, Already handed in the ID card I'm afraid, though if I'd done that scheme, the bird head on the fin would have been gold to make it stand out. They may have tried to do that and the paint shop shot it down. The Jaguar was to have had A type (Red/White/Blue) fin flash on it, the paint shop at Conz couldn't / wouldn't do it so a standard jag fin flash was used instead.

[8-15fromOdium]

What is wrong with letting the techies loose with a few paint brushes. Here's one we prepared earlier (no issues with CofG and Environmental whatsit either!):



http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/NBrant/Aviation/Military%20Slide%20Scans/SS0003613.jpg

[MAINJAFAD]

The Spotty Jag would have looked something like that, as the original peeling paintwork plan was the same colours as a real jaguar (light brown upper surfaces with black rings), until it was noted that the jet in that finish looked like somebody had dropped diarrhea on it, thus the change to an orange with black rings jaguar marking scheme.

[rolandpull]

Shot from a Tristar on 1st Apr....

The Photoshop 'What If' Thread... (http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=57412&start=25)

[Rhino power]

Now, this is how you do a striking tail design...

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/assets/AIRFORCE_Internet/images/news-nouvelles/2014/04/left-tail-928.jpg

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/assets/AIRFORCE_Internet/images/news-nouvelles/2014/04/right-tail-928.jpg

News Article | Royal Canadian Air Force | News Article | New paint celebrates 30 years of pilot training (http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=new-paint-celebrates-30-years-of-pilot-training/hticovrf)

-RP

[glad rag]

Hey Rhino, I do like the painters making sure no one was going to forget about their contribution! :D:D:D:D:D

[RAFEngO74to09]

149 FW - Texas ANG - "Gunfighters" - 65th Anniversary:

http://teresainfortworth.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/f-16-for-149ths-65th-anniversary-pic-5.jpg

140 FW - Colorado ANG - "Minute Men" - 50th Anniversary

http://www.140wg.ang.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060725-F-0381R-483.jpg

Belgian AF - 31 Sqn - "Tigers"

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=115749&d=1269594799

[glad rag]

Belgian AF - 31 Sqn - "Tigers"

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=115749&d=1269594799

Proper liney there..:ok:

[RAFEngO74to09]

Of course this is much better - added weight of paint - no problem - a triumph of phantastic thrust over such trivial issues !

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c152/mattibon/XV408B.jpg

http://www.92sqdn.brushhouse.co.uk/pics/XV408-1.jpg

[RAFEngO74to09]

Any excuse for more gratuitous posting of much more phanciful paint schemes:

http://images.flugrevue.de/sixcms/media.php/11/thumbnails/F-4F-Pharewell-2013.jpg.jpg.2338400.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5325/9175729045_16d705516f.jpg

http://www.mv-online.de/var/storage/images/mv/startseite/foto/lokales/kreis-steinfurt/rheine/phantom-pharewell-einflug-der-allerletzten-sonderlackierung/1/37165555-1-ger-DE/1_image_630_420f_wn.jpg