A total brain-fart, OF COURSE they're from UBAS! Cheers.

Thank you too, that's the earliest dated photo I've seen of the overall LAG scheme.

At our age, we are allowed the occasional brain-fart!

When I joined UBAS in early 1967, the fleet was silver with stick-on dayglo and had VHF radios. The new scheme and the UHF mod must have been applied over the Summer, which was when maintenance and painting was done, after Summer Camp (Binbrook that year) and before the Autumn Term, That would account for the colour scheme in the picture of WD353 in July 1968.

No one has mentioned the RN Chipmunks at Roborough. I recall (while at HQRAFSC c.1987) that we had a contract with Slingsbys to repaint a number of Chipmunks including a couple of RN ones. The delivery pilot (ex RAF) told me that he thought it was odd, when he arrived there with their first aircraft after repaint, that all the ones he could see were slightly different to the one he was in. It turned out that the Navy had repainted them at some stage and made various changes to the official drawings (which were of course the ones referenced in the contract). I think the differences incuded the colour of the canopy, the amount of red on the wingtips and the position of the roundel on the wing (but there may have been more).

We also sorted replacement aircraft (WG466 & WG486) for Gatow, as they wanted the up to date radio (I forget if that was UHF or VHF) instead of the 10 channel jobs. Then they said they wanted them in grey not red and white, so I told Shawbury to use the correct drawing but to use grey where it said "red" or "white"! WG486 is with the BBMF now; it had been repainted in black but is now in grey/dayglo.

Re: WG466 and WG486 - I think overall LAG was normal for all the Chipmunks of the Gatow Station Flight, as WP850 and WZ862 also appeared in this scheme. WG478 was the exception, there in May/June 1987 and again April/May 1994, but it was only intended as a "reserve" aircraft.

I'm a little confused by the description of how Slingsby were told to do the overall LAG (maybe I shouldn't be) as this was previously well described in DH's Mod H.293 dated 24.6.1970.

I like the 3rd colour scheme with the poly grey and the dayglo

Or maybe I'll go with the red, white and black

I haven't quite decided yet

But I can show everyone

what she used to look like

when I have 10 posts

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c731bae03f.jpg
This was when she was at the UAS Southampton at RAF Hamble

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c8d8465d27.jpg
This is when she was gifted to the Kenyan Air Force

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3cd0f4dbbc.jpg
and this is what she looks like currently. I want to put back to British spec. Just still undecided on paint scheme.

Yes PLEASE put it back into "British Spec". I get very annoyed when people think that plonking on a blown canopy and painting in yellow turn it into a DHC-1B. There are a myriad of obvious differences.

And for something different and a change from the usual suspects, why not go with the Kenyan markings, particularly as you have a really good reference photo?

Dora-9

Not a lot of difference between the original UK paint and the Kenyan apart from the obvious. Me being English, I am inclined to return her to original but I might go with the poly light grey with the orange as I think it looks a little better I think.

Dave

vmcdemo - if you want an RAF scheme, I'd go with the one in the Southampton UAS scheme. It's rare to see (today) the overall grey/DayGlo strips combination.

For what it's worth IMHO, silver/dayglow looked better than grey/dayglow. I might be biased as my first flight in one was in a silver/dayglow one WB627, on the day the photo above was taken (Post #11). WB627 Senior, was the pilot.

India Four Two, It does come with the original :"birdcage" canopy fortunately. I'm not sure if that is just a simple case of swapping them out though, might be, doubt it.

Both back to original Silver with the Orange dayglo and poly grey/ orange are considerations I think.

Thanks everyone for their thoughts and contributions and I'll let you know how it goes.

P.S. I absolutely agree, I also hate it when a British Chipmunk is made to look like or converted into a Canadian Chipmunk.

Personally I think the Canadian Chippies are better looking not to mention a lot nicer to fly aeros or formation without having to look through all the scrap iron. Converting it back to the bird cage is just beating it with an ugly stick.

But the point is, BPF, that in its currents guise it's NOT a Canadian Chipmunk! It's very obviously, if you know the differences, just a T.10 with a blown canopy and painted yellow. Or maybe I'm just being pedantic?

I don't doubt for one moment that the blown canopy is better though....