ZZ507 Executive Shadow

[bizfreeq]

Hi All
Seen leaving Bournemouth on Monday 4th November after paint and re-assembly new Shadow ZZ507 resplendent in it's new civvie type scheme:

IMG_2156 by MSPhotography, on Flickr

[Amp]

Different, it's a bit of a mixture isn't it?
The black bird at the top of tail looks good though.
When I first saw the note about the scheme I was thinking it had reverted to its original pre military scheme.

[paddyboy]

Hi Mark

Something a bit different there

Thanks for posting

Paddyboy

[POL]

So is that an R1, R1A, R1+ or R2?!

Either way, well caught Mark - very nice to see.

[bizfreeq]

Very good question Chris, I've seen it referred to as R1A and R1+ but more often as an R2 because it's a highest spec but new build a/c. However I haven't seen anything official for any designation on that list!
Thanks for the comments chaps

[TonyO]

Great catch, I wonder if we will see some other Shadows in non-standard schemes. Its not an R2 as this is still in development, this should be an R1A.

[Canberra TT.18]

Hi

What's the idea about given it a civvie like scheme?

Does it have an other role as the 'standard's grey ones.
Don't think this one operating in a Syrian/Afghan eg. environment .
A bit like the old SAS A109's which came in different colour variations?

Any way I like it.

Pieter

[Kurnass]

This scheme is probably ment not to attract too much attention. Grey looks military, this looks civil to the untrained eyes. Same goes for the civil-styled US sneaky Beeches and PC-12’s.

[nellis6]

Can't see anything that distinguishes it from an R1A in terms of antennas etc, so presumably an R1A. Great catch either way and I love the scheme

[Seahawk 11]

Now I do like that one, thanks for posting it,

Rob

[Punkrunner62]

Make a nice change, better then the standard grey scheme, it would certainly improve the photography in lower light conditions, and a nice shot by the way.
Cheers.

[Tiger 1]

Nice catch... very nice... like the colour scheme... look forward to seeing this at some point.

Thanks for sharing this

T1

[tommc]

There is no such mark as an R1A.

There are the original unmodified R1 marks (ZZ416/418/504)
There are the modified R1+ marks (ZZ417/419/507)
There are the currently being upgraded R2ICM marks (ZZ505/506)

[yellowcake-uf6]

Nice catch! That is very interesting... thanks for posting.

[bizfreeq]

There is no such mark as an R1A.

There are the original unmodified R1 marks (ZZ416/418/504)
There are the modified R1+ marks (ZZ417/419/507)
There are the currently being upgraded R2ICM marks (ZZ505/506)

Thanks for the clarification Tom.

[Supra]

Right time, right place...at work! Great shot Mark. Referring to the second post by 'Amp'..... seeing a 'Blackbird' at the top of the fin. First impression for me was a Bottlenose Dolphin!

[TonyO]

There is no such mark as an R1A.

There are the original unmodified R1 marks (ZZ416/418/504)
There are the modified R1+ marks (ZZ417/419/507)
There are the currently being upgraded R2ICM marks (ZZ505/506)

Thanks, will correct my records. What is ICM?

[knutt]

Nice photo,love the colour scheme. I can't remember where I saw this,but I thought one of the 8 aircraft was going to have a roll on/roll off system fitted to enable it to be used as a trainer.

Kevin

[Weazel69]

This remark might interest the following - tommc, bizfreeq & TonyO
In the latest publication of AFM #381 December 2019 there is a small report on ZZ507 by Martin Fox which states that 507 is an R2 Whilst the earlier R1s are being reworked to R1A as interim, and then will be reworked to R2s
I must admit that I know not which is correct as I have seen them reported as both R1+ and R1A it seems to be whatever the writer thinks is correct

[tommc]

This remark might interest the following - tommc, bizfreeq & TonyO
In the latest publication of AFM #381 December 2019 there is a small report on ZZ507 by Martin Fox which states that 507 is an R2 Whilst the earlier R1s are being reworked to R1A as interim, and then will be reworked to R2s
I must admit that I know not which is correct as I have seen them reported as both R1+ and R1A it seems to be whatever the writer thinks is correct

I stand by my comments.

Perhaps AFM could actually contact RAF/MoD/14 Sqn, rather than just regurgitate old, out-of-date and incorrect information? If they have done so and that is the information they have been given, then I apologise.