It wasn't a case of getting lumbered - it was based on dstl analysis and formal approval by the MoD Camouflage Working Group.

Who saw that coming?

If you look at the links I posted Martin, you will see the 1943 manual someone has scanned for the paint schemes.

I can't see how this is an effective camo scheme as it stands out, and as this is also a recce asset, the mounting of the optical sensors low on the airframe as opposed to mast or roof mounted, is a bit strange. On the other hand, it looks nice in piccys.


Seen at Otterburn last week.


http://i58.tinypic.com/33usemw.jpg


http://i60.tinypic.com/20rmohs.jpg


http://i59.tinypic.com/vreja8.jpg

Would look much nicer on 150 Blackhawks that can actually do the job:ugh:

Seconded......

There is no point having something to draw the fire away from the proper battle winning kit if the enemy cannot see it in the first place.....

On paper it looks like both types have similar performance/capability, arguably Lynx does better in the number of troops it carries. So, why is Blackhawk better?

:ok: Many thanks, NutLoose, and if you can get hold of a copy of Britain Alone: The camouflage and markings of British military aircraft June 1940-December 1941 by Paul Lucas it's well worth a read regarding the development of the Day Fighter Scheme.

Depends on where your operational environment is going to be and what your threat is. If your threat is fighters flying at a higher level, then a grey scheme over a green background is not good. However, if your intending that the aircraft is operated at a higher alltitude and the threat comes from ground based opponents, then a grey scheme is better.

Kitbag - that's simple one is made by a manufacturer that's never built a successful helicopter and the other really is capable of carrying 8+ with their kit. Not sure what 'on paper' you are reading.

MOSTAFA, I'll grant mine was a very 'Top Trumps' comparison, hence the rider 'on paper', the Sikorsky has by nature of ts home country a vast manufacturing base. I find your primary reason rather trite, though.
What does the SH-60, in your opinion, actually do better than Wildcat?

Well you can swing a cat in the back:ugh: oh and the wipers work! The other stuff the fielding pilots tell me is certainly not for here.

My trite'ness, as you like to call it; incidentally, not a word I'd use to explain my total lack of confidence, might have something to do with several thousand hours of the other manufacturers very best and wishing all those years we'd bought the Blackhawks instead. It's that simple really.

Not that it matters, given that neither Service had a choice in the selection-process.

So why's the gate guardian at Benson all over PRU blue? Was that an earlier scheme?

Diginagain, absolutely! I'm sure you can remember the Dannett interview telling of the conversation between Torpy and himself, that comes across as two bickering children. Hence, negative to Blackhawk.....oh well

Indeed I do!

The Benson Spit (or at least the plastic replica that sits there now) represents a PR variant, and overall PRU blue was used for PR throughout the war and for a number of years afterwards. The Mks. VI and VII were high altitude fighters, and their colour scheme was specified by Fighter Command. Early Vampires and Hornets were the last fighters to use the scheme in about 1947-48. Interestingly, in the early 1950s high altitude PR aircraft were repainted with the medium sea grey on the upper surfaces as well, and I think the Meteor PR. 10 was the last type to use it. The final Spitfires at THUM Flight retained overall PRU blue.

The Wildcat cannot do high, high and heavy.

We could have bought three times as many Blackhawks for the same price, ten years ago. ie when we were at war and young lads were dying for suitable medivac.

We could have bought any number of them 30 years ago, but didn't. Westland offered to build them under license.

If we'd bought UH-60 off the shelf 10 years ago, how long would it have taken to field them?