Is the belly of the Spitfire Mk II supposed to look like this?

[Vorondil]

Noticed something which I thought looked a bit weird, and thus I am wondering whether or not the Spit MkII is supposed to have this very peculiar looking perfectly-visible-against-any-background belly camo, or if I'm having some problem with my texture caches or something?

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't think it's accurate for the Spit Mk.II, but there were Spitfires in the battle of France that had this. They were painted like this so that friendly anti-aircraft gunners could recognize them and not fire at them.

[Ploughman]

I see you've had you're wings clipped going under that bridge. Now how jammy is that?

[reflected]

Balck and white camouflage was used from 39 until around June 1940 in order to make sure the AA guys know which aircrafts are friendly. Then they introduced the "sky" (duck-egg green) undersides. However, later on the black and white was re-introduced for a very short time from November 1940 to Spring 1941, and I'm not sure all the squadrons used it.

All in all, I'm not a big fan of having such a default skin

I thought it's a bit dumb having one side black. Kinda defeats the purpose on having the other side light. Just paint it all black then

[Vorondil]

Originally Posted by Ploughman

I see you've had you're wings clipped going under that bridge. Now how jammy is that?

It was a tight fit indeed. Passed the Blackfriar's Bridge (the one on the right outside the image) without scratch, clipped the right wing tip on Waterloo Bridge (the farther), and the left tip on Westminster Bridge (the nearer). No damages or effects inflicted on any other systems and it was no more prone to stalls than before, and performance was quite nice afterwards, climbed a bit less agressively at max speeds, but I'm not certain if roll rate was improved or not. Later smashed into London Bridge while trying to cross it at 250mph along the road... darn cross wind.