The attached advert for the issue of RAF-themed stamps marking the 90th anniversary of the founding of that service appears in this week’s Radio Times, page 30. When I first saw it I was pleased that the Royal Mail had gone to so much trouble, and I was prepared to be positive and take the “Pride in the Smallest Detail” slogan at face value. But then I looked harder…. The first discrepancy I noticed was the title of the enlarged design at the top: “Hawker Hunter pilot 1951”. Well for heaven’s sake! [splutters toast over PC screen]. Everyone knows the Hunter didn’t enter service until 1954! :frusty: My nine-year old could have told them that! (Well she soon will be able to anyway. Not that I expect my children to be high achievers or anything. :irvine: I had a book when I was not much older than nine which had that information in it. But then I was a strange child….). Only the first prototype Hunter was flying in ‘51, so very few service pilots, if any, would have flown it. So then I turned my attention to the image of the 1941 Air Gunner. I used a magnifying glass to try and read the text on the side of the stamp, (I've been off work sick for a couple of days so I you think I should get out more you're probably right) and I think it says “Lancaster Air Gunner 1941”. The Lancaster didn’t enter service until Feb 1942. If wanted to be charitable, which I don’t, I could accept that the first Lancaster squadrons were “working-up” in late ‘41, so maybe this air gunner was flying with them. But what about the yellow flying suit? Uniforms aren’t my speciality so I wouldn’t go to the stake for this, but I would have thought that a pale beige would be more believable. Can any of you comment on this, before I write a reasonable and civil letter to the Royal Mail cursing them for a bunch of addle-headed illiterates with half a brain between them and with a contempt for the Royal Air Force equalled only by Herman Goering and Duncan Sandys? :laser: And would an air gunner have worn goggles - they are usually pictured without them? The scan hasn't reproduced well here. But you can see the yellow flying suit in the middle of the lower row of images
Following from the above, this picture is one of the few wartime colour photos I can find of RAF aircrew. They certainly don’t seem to be wearing yellow. (They are boarding a Manchester. For those of you who haven’t seen this photo before, what are the clues that it is a Manchester not a Lancaster, given that you can’t see the engines?)
Mid-upper suggests Manchester, AR. Dead giveaway would be the serial of course if such records were easily at hand. Kyt'll be able to nail the turret and probably knows if any Lancs flew with this design but I don't think they did. I'd write that letter, mate, I think you're on to something. Good pick-ups, I reckon.
It does sound like they've taken the first test flights as the first operational flights, which considering they then associating actual operational fliers with those dates, is wrong. And to my shame I have these stamps but didn't pay too much attention. The gunners overalls are interesting. But correct. Until I find a better picture this will have to do
Here's something particularly fascinating. Note the Lanc gunner. Looks like he's from the Caribbean which is a good shot at the unsung members of the Commonwealth! Can we link the pic to someone specific? Note the year for the gunner as well. Definitely 1944, I'm afraid (but relieved), AR. Win RAF stamps! - Solihull News
Adrian, the reason why they are not wearing yellow in the Manchester picture is because they are wearing two pieces - an Irving flying jacket and Irving fur lined trousers. The yellow suit was a one piece - I believe known as the G2
You can access a magnifier on the Royal Mail site here: http://www.royalmail.com/portal/stamps/jump1?catId=74300748&mediaId=82500762 ...and there's an info pack of sorts: ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/RAF_Uniforms_Preview280708.pdf
And the fact I was looking at these stamps today after picking them up from the PO, and we have the stamp book as well..... Oops. And you can tell its a Manchester because it ain't bleeding flying
Ok, thanks everyone, good thing I checked before opening fire on innocent postmen! Yes, now I can see from the RoyalMail website that it says 1944. But on the advert in the Radio Times the caption under the stamp (not on the stamp itself which is unreadable in the advertisement) definitely says 1941. I'm looking at it now. Obviously a misprint then. Ok, my blood pressure is reducing already. But the yellow shows as brighter on the stamp than on the cover of the book; the latter is more beige. Maybe just the way it prints. So were these optional alternatives, or did the G2 replace the Irving? And was the yellow a deliberate attempt to make a crewman visible if ditched in the sea? I hadn't noticed that - the reproduction in the advert is very small. Or maybe due to racial stereotyping, I saw what I expected to see, i.e. a white man, in which case I apologise. Certainly some Carribean men served as air gunners, and there was at least one who was one of the leading gunner aces; can't remember his name though. Yes, the Botha-type turret, and the early L-prefix serial. And for a check, count the number of rivets along the upper longeron.... or look in Saddo's British Military Aircraft Serials 1485-1979. And the Hunter stamp definitely says 1951. Grrrr.!
I have scanned the insert card that comes with the FDC (now that I've found it). Once I've located the stamp booklet I'll scan that too
The airgunners Taylor buoyancy suit can be seen here in a truer colour alliedflightgear.com (second from bottom)
Kyt So it does look a duller yellow than on the stamp. I can just about read on the insert card that this suit was indeed intended as a flotation suit, but I can't read the rest - can you tell us? Interesting that they were expected to fly in a shirt and tie, though I suppose wearing a tie wasn't such a hardship for them as it would be for us! But I did hear that when they were floating after ditching, some were nearly strangled, maybe actually strangled, when the tie shrunk when wet. I wonder how far into the war ties were discarded or at least loosened?
The rest of the insert card says, after the flotation bit, that the suit was specially provided to Air Gunners isolated at the rear of a bomber's fuselage.
My question is ..... if you're colour blind - how can you tell AR that the right colour is second from the bottom ?? :noidea:
Even the card seems duller than the stamp itself Adrian, I scanned in larger size so that the dates could be read. When you click on the attachment it comes up as a pop-up. Click on it again, but it will probably "fit to page.". Click on the picture once to enlarge it to the intended size The official uniform was the shirt and tie, and was first discarded by fighter pilots in 1940 when they discovered that the starched collers rubbed their necks red raw as they constantly turned their heads to check over their shoulders. It was then discarded by bomber crews to be replaced by warmer jumpers etc. But I believe these changes were always unofficial, though rarely made an issue of.
Ah dear Watson, tis elementary An item of real clothing, even old and faded, will always be a better reflection of a colour than a colour profile. Colour profiles always seem to be brighter - same with the RAF blues. So thogh I couldn't say exactly what colour etc something is, I have learnt to compare and contrast shades, etc
