Help with spitfire sky needed

[dogsbody]

I have just recieved a set of Montex super masks for the Hobby Boss Spitfire mk Vb to do the aircraft flown by F/Lt Eric S Lock ,611 Squadron , July 1941

The paint chart calls for the undeer surface to be painted Sky.

The Hobby boss painting guide calls for the green / brown Spit to have a Sky Blue undersurface so i purchased a tin of White Ensign Sky Blue BS1 ennamel.

This, when it arrived was not quite whaat i was expecting .

I think i was expecting something a little less blue and alittle bit more greenish

When the masks arrived the following day the colours seem to closely match the tin lid.

After a bit of googling i understand that there is a colour Sky type s which is more of a pale greeny blue and it is likely that the spinner and fuselarge band may be in this lighter colour with the undersurface sky blue

I notice that John Wilkes has usedGunze sangyo H74 sky for his build in model Airplane international (Dec 2011)

Please any ideas anyone

I'm wondering if all this is a bit more info than you hoped to get, Mottlemaster? Who could guess that a simple colour question could stir up some people so much.

Chris

[Paul Wagner]

but i can speculate that in 1940, which was a time of national crisis, what was more important, the urgent requirement of protecting your aircraft / pilots with good effective camoflage, or making sure that the paint you had immediately to hand was to the correct paint standard?

I remember reading a thing from a BoB RAF pilot who said explicitly that the paints came from dozen of different small firms, and there was a great deal of actual colour variation, especially with "sky" - a lot of it turning up as light blue. Which, lets face it, is the colour of the actual sky....

Paul

[Edgar]

As an official paint for military equipment ( i.e bombs) Eau de Nil would have a 33B section and reference number

But, it didn't; in 1937, 1942 & 1947 paint lists Eau-de-Nil does not figure.

As for your point of how regulated this was and "disobeying a direct order" I don't think it was official policy to paint RAF vehicles and ground equipment in non standard camoflage schemes with paint originally destined for brickwork on hangars and station buildings, but as we have seen, it happened!

Unless things have changed, markedly, you don't fly hangars, vehicles, ground equipment and station buildings, and personnel were told never to mix dissimilar paints, nor to overpaint one type with another. Have you any evidence that brickwork paint was used on aircraft?

It was a time of crisis,The Germans were 22 miles away. Britain was alone, backs to the wall, we were fighting for survival. Commanding officers had to prepare for an imminent invasion with limited resource, and those people who had been in the battle of France all knew what was coming from bitter experience. I think the pre war mentality of hanging a guy for disobeying a direct order because "he used the wrong paint" was long gone by then.

Civilians were being imprisoned for saying that they thought the Germans might win.

I think the waiting for "the official paperwork/ regulation" expident when you are in this situation was probably a little bit down on everyones priority list.

Front line RAF squadrons had to get things done, get it done now,using what was readily to hand. The paperwork would have been the least concern.

But the "paperwork" (see above) gave the option not to repaint the aircraft, until stocks became available, and you can't use "what's to hand," if you don't have stocks of the paint; there's no evidence that Eau-de-Nil was anywhere in the RAF's stocks, Sky Blue was available, but the B.S.381:1/B.S.381C:101 Sky Blue does not match the RAF Museum's wartime Sky Blue, neither does 381:4/381C:104 Azure Blue match the wartime Azure.

However tempting it might be "I think" does not constitute research; I have several theories about what might have happened, during the war, but, without written evidence, of some sort, feel that it's best to keep my own counsel.

[Mottlemaster]

I'm wondering if all this is a bit more info than you hoped to get, Mottlemaster? Who could guess that a simple colour question could stir up some people so much.

Chris

Hi Chris

Hope this thred helps others in the future and as long as its friendly debate it must be a good thing.

Just got my Humbrol 90 which is called Beige green according to the latest Humbrol paint chart

[gingerbob]

I happened upon this just now: RAE memo 7/4/41 discusses two Spits (X4815,X4816) trialling new camouflage colours. Further comments were dated 24/4. Scheme A included Sky Blue* undersides (and, partially, Sky Grey uppers). Scheme B underside was described as "Light greenish blue", and a further comment says that this was "midway between Sky and Sky Blue". It was also stated that Sky Blue was preferred to "greenish blue" for undersides.

*Note: When I transcribed these documents I did not fully appreciate the potential significance of capitalization, so I cannot swear that this is "official Sky Blue" as opposed to "a sky blue colour", but it does seem the reasonable interpretation. It seems to suggest that Sky Blue (and Sky Grey) were available as recognized colours at that time.

Now, some other comments. Ian's documents dovetail nicely with Edgar's at the top of the page. I agree that the last one shown acknowledges the possibility that people might try to mix locally, but I do not read it to allow departures from the colour standard desired. Rather there is the familiar vagueness in description of a "pale blue" colour, but I think (sorry Edgar!) that there is ample evidence that, however it was described, "Sky" was the actual colour intended to be achieved.

Note also the close spacing of the documents, and, in the middle, the painting of Ark Royal's Skuas. It is entirely feasible that while the instructions were still being clarified, some approximations or misinterpretations occurred.

bob

[Steve in Ottawa]

G-B,

Sounds like a cool find. Perhaps for a new thread - Do you have any further information on the other upper surface camo colours that were being trialled? It was a tantalizing but frustrating (SAM?) aricle that discussed these camouflage trials, which teased by being well shy of being anything definitive for these aircraft.

[Edgar]

This is, probably, the paper, and it's tempting to think that it was what led to Ocean Grey:-

Edgar

[Steve in Ottawa]

Edgar,

Simply fabulous stuff. I now understand how much this tells us and how much it hints at what we can now only guess at. It goes a long way to explain why that (SAM?) article was so speculative about the actual schemes. Why didn't these AFDU guys just take a few photos with their cell phone cameras and add them to their notes? Oh wait, never mind that last thought... .

Thanks for sharing this with us.

[gingerbob]

Yes, that's the one, Edgar. Thanks for putting it up here.

Steve, you're so right. I also this morning saw my notes concerning a report on Haze Paint, as used on F-5 Lightnings. It noted something like, "Color photos with original copy of report"- I, of course, was not looking at the original copy.

bob

p.s. There was also something about "these (favored) schemes will now be applied to a squadron of Hurricanes for a full-scale test" You KNOW they must have taken some pictures somewhere along the way, but they were probably B&Ws...

[Mottlemaster]

I am now at the point of combining kit and paint . Will i be way off if i go with the info from

To sum it up a Sky (Humbrol 90 ) undersurface

Sky Blue (WEM) tail band and spinner

Thanks Alistair

Edited September 18, 2012 by Mottlemaster

[Edgar]

These trials were running about the same time, and, although it talks of "Day fighters," it might well have ended with night fighters. January 12th., 1941, a report was sent, by the F.I.U., about trials with a Blenheim whose upper surfaces had been painted left half black/right half green, split down the centre line, and "It was found that the Green side of the aircraft was so inconspicuous when observed against the ground that this Blenheim appeared quite frequently as a one winged aeroplane."

85 Squadron then concocted their own mix of 1 part sea grey, 1 part green (dull matt,) half part dark blue identification, half part black night special; all this was then lightly oversprayed with black, but this seems to have foundered on the way.

Edgar

[Smithy]

Just raising another possiblility and before anyone asks, it is merely something which I have dreamed up...

IF No.1 Sky Blue And No.16 Eau de Nil were available to DTD63A and DTD 260A standards (and we haven't seen anything to suggest that they definitely were not).

Is it possible that when RAF stores received (perhaps as many as) over 70 indents from frontline operational squadrons for the new Sky colour after the X915 signal of the 6th June and when they in turn sent requests (and I imagine that these would have been classed as urgent) to the aircraft finishing industry/paint manufacturers, that they could have replied to RAF stores stating that they did not have the colour available and wouldn't to the quantities requested for some time but, they did have some stocks of colour(s) to the correct specifications which were close to that originally requested and which could be supplied relatively quickly?

I have no idea whether this has any validity - as I said it's merely something which I thought of and thought it might be worth at least airing in relation to this discussion.

Unfortunately we seem to have a lot of internal RAF communications and also those with the RAE quoted and posted in this thread but (and unless I've missed it) we have no correspondence between the stores organisation and the aircraft finishing industry. Who knows whether these still exist but perhaps they could reveal a little something?

[Edgar]

.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Edgar

[iang]

The 'lack of urgency' is a comment on CRO's perception of the orders by the RTO. It is not an AM statement suggesting that there is no urgency to comply (the end of the quote marks is after the sentence ending in confusing).

[Troy Smith]

To sum it up a Sky (Humbrol 90 ) undersurface

Sky Blue (WEM) tail band and spinner

Thanks Alistair

Alistair

I feel your original question has maybe been lost in the mass of discussion.

In short, NO.

add a bit of white into the sky paint used for the underside to lighten a bit, use that for spinner and band. These would have been added later at unit level

see here - http://www.britmodel...showtopic=70201

In more detail....

What should be pointed out, the sky band and spinner were introduced in Nov 1940.

This is a Mk I, but not a really early MK I

regarding the "on Target' my feeling is this, don't trust a profile without a photo.

see here, list every Spitfire built - http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/

X4854 Ia 1351 EA MIII FF 14-12-40 MU 16-12-42 53OTU into sea nr Dunraven Castle Thought struct fail of stbd wing 2-1-43

Nothing about being with 601 sq. Others may know more.

Anyway, if you apply fresh sky paint to an older airframe, it will appear different, brighter I would say from the pics I have seen.

eg 257 Sq Hurricane, taken Nov 1940, not long after introduction of Sky bands.

Note lighter sky band. This plane would have been painted sky at the factory or MU.

The band is lighter because it's fresh paint.

In this case a date Iof may/june 1941, this plane should have had a black wing during the winter. I don't how different the band/spinner would look.

OK, here's a famous pic, taken may 1941. This will be as good as you get for a WW2 era colour pic of this.

Note the paler sky band.

This is from Etienne's photo stream. he'd collected about every colour pic of British aircraft I ever seen and a load I've not before here - [this link looks funny]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/sets/72157605269786717/with/3052829500/

amazing resource.

I said this before, but I'll say it again.

download this.

It's free. Out of print for 40 years.

Still the best primer on the subject.

pdf's here - http://ebookee.org/C...-45_342615.html

All 12 volumes on RAF fighters, and 10 on the USAAF are available as pdf's if you search, well, if you scroll down. Get them all you will never regret them. I have a bound set which I use frequently.

I think the files linked are .rar files.

This is a form of 'zipping' , you can un-rar by using 7-zip, it's freeware available here - http://www.7-zip.org/

I use it.

Given the way a lot of file hosters have been shut down I suggest getting these while you can.

Right, this has taken for too bloomin' long.

HTH

T

[Smithy]

add a bit of white into the sky paint used for the underside to lighten a bit, use that for spinner and band. These would have been added later at unit level

see here - http://www.britmodel...showtopic=70201

Hi Troy,

Whilst it's true that spinners and fuselage bands would have been added by squadrons and MUs when their initial introduction occurred, these soon became applied at the factory:

There also doesn't seem to be a correct answer to their definite colour. Lucas has postulated that there's a possibility that AM Sky Blue was used, and there's annecdotal evidence from different squadrons for both white and Sky.

[gingerbob]

That photo was taken in approximately early-Feb 1942, so is not exactly proof that they "soon" became applied at the factory. There WAS a period of time in early '41 when Castle Bromwich, at least, was still painting the spinners black and not doing the aft-fuselage ring of Sky. Admittedly the subject airplane was Supermarine built, not CB.

Troy, X4854's individual history is obviously incomplete- completed Dec '40 but no entry until a Maint. Unit two years later?

bob

[Smithy]

That photo was taken in approximately early-Feb 1942, so is not exactly proof that they "soon" became applied at the factory. There WAS a period of time in early '41 when Castle Bromwich, at least, was still painting the spinners black and not doing the aft-fuselage ring of Sky. Admittedly the subject airplane was Supermarine built, not CB.

Troy, X4854's individual history is obviously incomplete- completed Dec '40 but no entry until a Maint. Unit two years later?

bob

Awfully sorry but my scanner is on the blink so I had to link to an already existing photo on the internet. Otherwise I would have posted an earlier photographic example .

I am aware of the Castle Bromwich builds lacking the fuselage band and Sky spinner (as shown by the photo of P8329 in April '41), although I had always been under the impression that this was the exception rather than the rule. I'm more than happy to be corrected if I am under a false impression.

[gingerbob]

You're probably right that Castle Brom was unusually slow about incorporating changes. If I remember right they also continued to paint the fin flashes "too tall" per the new standard. I'm not sure when they adjusted to the new requirements. I haven't done any "photo analysis" for Supermarine to see if they got with the program sooner, and I don't know offhand if enough appropriate photos can be found. For some reason I'm thinking of the lineup of brand new Mk.Vs- I'll have to go look at that shot...

bob

Edit: Found it, and they have the rings and Sky spinners, and are supposedly Eastleigh Apr '41, awaiting collection (W3127 is first in line). Probably correct. However, there's a shot of W3332, which was the first with the new-style windscreen, which would be June '41, and that one doesn't have the Sky spinner or band. Hmm... Spit the Hist shows W3759 (or so they say- can only make out the first 2.5 digits), which rolled out in early August, and again black spinner and no tail band.

Edit again: Oops, I just realized that I was confused about the subject choice. I thought you were after the Mk.I in post 85, and now realize that was just an example of "the look". Your Mk.V is W32__, right?

Edited September 20, 2012 by gingerbob

[Smithy]

Edit: Found it, and they have the rings and Sky spinners, and are supposedly Eastleigh Apr '41, awaiting collection (W3127 is first in line). Probably correct. However, there's a shot of W3332, which was the first with the new-style windscreen, which would be June '41, and that one doesn't have the Sky spinner or band. Hmm... Spit the Hist shows W3759 (or so they say- can only make out the first 2.5 digits), which rolled out in early August, and again black spinner and no tail band.

That's one of the photos that sprung to mind Bob. Any chance you can post it here, as I said my scanner is on the fritz?

One of the most obvious features of this image is the very obvious and distinct tonal difference between the spinner/fuselage band and the under surfaces. Without doubt they are nowhere near the same colour.

[Steve in Ottawa]

Depending on the actual date of the photo, is it also possible that this photo is showing aircraft painted in the new Day Fighter Scheme (as of August '41), vice the Temperate Land Scheme?

Or maybe it's just that the visible lower surfaces are in the shadows? That small round panel hanging down at mid-fuselage could be Sky-coloured. Or not...

I always wondered what was going on in this photo - particularly why the engine panels all seem to be in bare metal?

[Mark12]

I always wondered what was going on in this photo - particularly why the engine panels all seem to be in bare metal?

Lik an Aston Martin as opposed to a Ford, it is a 'File and Fit' aircraft. Sub assemblies were painted prior to final assembly.

[dadgaddad]

Mottlemaster, I think the real choice here is either go mad trying to get an answer out of these guys or slap on a coat of Humbrol 90 and be done with it. I'll be interested to see how your Lock Spit progresses as I have the decals tucked away for a future project.

[Smithy]

Depending on the actual date of the photo, is it also possible that this photo is showing aircraft painted in the new Day Fighter Scheme (as of August '41), vice the Temperate Land Scheme?

Or maybe it's just that the visible lower surfaces are in the shadows? That small round panel hanging down at mid-fuselage could be Sky-coloured. Or not...

I always wondered what was going on in this photo - particularly why the engine panels all seem to be in bare metal?

We know that this photo (the one which I have asked Gingerbob if he is able to post) is definitely April 1941 (so before the introduction of DG/OG/MSG) because of the production date of the airframe (W3127) nearest to the photographer.

In terms of "muddying the waters" for the original poster's question, well, I'm certainly guilty! But it's been an interesting thread with various theories, reasons,,and ideas discussed.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Smithy

[Smithy]

OK, here is the photo that Gingerbob and I were talking about of Spitfires at Eastleigh in April 1941 (with W3127 in the foreground)...

It shows spinners and fuselage bands applied (prior to going to Brize Norton for cannon fitting) and subsequent allocation to squadrons, and also the marked difference between them and the underside colour of, what was at this time, Sky.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Smithy