Beaufighter puzzle

[rossm]

What are the colours on this Beafighter http://www.404squadron.com/images/gallery/PL41009.jpg ?

Is it an example of the Special Duties Coastal scheme detailed in DTD360 (Feb and Nov 1943) for EDSG uppersurfaces and glossy white undersurfaces with the area between (that would have been matt white on antisubmarine aircraft) in Dark Sea Grey - presumably modified by the "understanding" that seems to have been in use at the time that the undersides could be Sky on Beaufighters ?

Ross

[Col.]

That certainly looks different to what I've seen on the Beaufighter until now. There was a thread started not long ago on the subject of Mosquito colours that drifted onto the subject of Beaufighters as well. Can't find it now but that mentioned some schemes I'd not heard of before.

[brewerjerry]

Hi

I like the rudder, three colours ?

looks like it is done the canadian way, 'that colours close, so just use that one '

jerry

[Patrick Martin]

there are other photos of LZ295 on the IWM site ....might help.

also a general search Beaufighter LZ295 ...

PM

[tonyot]

Terry you are the man,.....I was going to say what you said but in much less detail and then refer readers to your Aviaeology website!

All the best

Tony O

[rossm]

Thank you Terry, I'd forgotten your article which I have tucked away somewhere for "safe keeping". It wasn't a scheme which I could find in your very comprehensive decal sheet instructions.

I'd say the serial does not look as white as the roundel ring - so it could be down to perception of the small serial against a dark background and I'll go with Sky if I build it - unless I can be pretty sure it would have appeared in this scheme in May 44 after the move to Davidstow (for the Cornish connection) I'll be doing one off your sheet. The landscape in the photo could easily be Davidstow but I've never been to Wick to know if that's much different.

Ross

[dogsbody]

Somewhere I have seen a side profile colour drawing of this Beau, but do you think I can find it now! I'll keep looking as time allows.

Chris

[Col.]

This has turned into a facinating thread for me. The Wick based Beaufighters were not so local to me as the Banff wing machines but the existance of a new and unusual scheme has caught my attention. That Aviaeology are going to cover then in a decal sheet means I'll likely have to add a third kit to the stash at the very least. Now if you'll excues me I'm away for a search around the 404 Sqn. website...

[Col.]

Thank you Terry. How did you guess I had a Mossie destined for building as a Banff bird?

[dogsbody]

Terry, if I'm not mistaken, the third photo in that link, the one showing the man on the tractor, is that Beau behind him not painted like the one in Ross' first posting?

Chris

[Selwyn]

Gents

Gf you look at the LH armourer (guy holding rocket) Just by his LH trouser pocket there is the tail of another Beau parked on the other side of this aircraft you can just see part of its serial ??431.Looks like it has a white underside?

Selwyn

[rossm]

Yes, that's correct Chris. That aircraft, LX940 / Y was an early-arrival TF.X and served on 404 for a very long time – into Feb-March of '45 IIRC – through several scheme refinishes. The photo you refer to has her as 2•Y at Wick. I contend that the codes switched from this lighter colour (likely Sky or a lighter grey like Medium Sea Grey) to Dull Red with Yellow outlines soon after the squadron moved from Wick in 18 Group to Davidstow Moor in 19 Group.

The only colour for codes referred to in DTD 360 is the Light Slate Grey in the 'white' scheme. LSG is actually quite a dark colour and would explain the lack of contrast with the DSG fuselage sides. Could this have been used until the (October?) memo which authorised Sky undersurfaces for Beaufighters came out? I haven't seen this memo (referred to by MJF Bowyer in Airfix Magazine among others) but perhaps it also changed the code letter colour? Maybe someone who has seen it could tell us.

Glad there may be evidence to support the original photo being at Davidstow, the landscape certainly fits, even though it means, like Col, I'll be looking for another kit for my stash.

Ross

[Nick Millman]

FWIW R C "Bob" Jones noted from first hand observation (iro VIcs)

"the very noticeable difference between the pristine 'new' upper surface Grey to the rather worn and battered Sky undersurface colour on aircraft from the crack Banff Strike Wing"

He also mentions Ocean Grey and Dark Sea Grey being used instead of EDSG on upper surfaces and that codes were mainly Dull Red throughout the life of the Coastal Beaufighters but records PL-V RD147 of 144 Sqn at Langham in 1944 with black codes over EDSG. The Dull Red perhaps followed the abandonment of white undersurfaces as 5(iii)* was "re-interpreted" and note the narrow light outline to the 'Z' code letter in the photo which might indicate masking 'either way'. Light Slate Grey code letters would offer very little contrast against Dark Sea Grey sides as both colours had 14% reflectivity.

The reference to Sky Blue undersurfaces elsewhere is intriguing as colour photos of earlier coastal Blenheims suggest that colour too.

Of course that Beau in the linked photo at the top of this thread might just be in the little known experimental scheme of Sea Blue over White with Intermediate Blue fuselage sides adapted for trials from the USN (I'm joking)...

* "DULL RED - For other operational aircraft and O.T.U. aircraft, excluding Fighter Command O.T.U. day fighter aircraft." (my emphasis)

Nick

[rossm]

Terry,

Thanks for all the input. For the DSeaG / LSlateG I was thinking of the 2.Y photo in your Vintage Wings post rather than my OP. Can we add that photo for Nick to comment on as well please?

Ross

[rossm]

Here is the second photo..........

[Mark Mackenzie]

n/m

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[rossm]

(ps. for thos without a copy of DT360, copies of the relevent Coastal Command Schemes are available on the web at:

http://www.rafweb.org/sqn_codes2.htm ).

Substantial edit as this post was a bit confusing

The link given quotes an Air Publication (from late 1944) giving the same scheme as in DTD360 Issue 2 of February 1943 which had been superceded by late 1944.

I assume this is just another example of, as Terry said, official documents playing catch-up with reality which has been complicated further by duplication of documents which then get out of step.

[For more on DTD360 and the evolution of the Coastal schemes have a look at the thread on Mosquitos with Medium Sea Grey vs Sky undersides. Eventually I'll update my web page on the topic but it'll be a while!]

This neatly shows, I think, that you have to be careful with official documents as they may not be the true source - in fact behind Terry's original comment I can visualise committees and sub-committees whose findings were probably issued as minutes and/or interim documents and taken up at unit level long before they reached DTD360 or similar 'top-level' documents.

Ross

Edited September 6, 2013 by rossm

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 9/6/2013 at 5:46 PM, rossm said:

Which quotes a different document giving the early issue DTD360 schemes but with a date that doesn't fit into the sequence of DTD360 issues.

n/m

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Nick Millman]

Hi Nick. Good to see you come up on net on this topic.

Ref the Jones comment. I'll have to review the material at hand, but I was unaware that the Banff Wing had any VICs on strength. I believe that all were TF.Xs prior to it going over to being the all-Mosquito wing in 18 Group (with Dallachy then becoming the all-Beau wing). Still, It's an interesting and viable anecdote.

Ocean grey DSG vice EDSG. Again, anecdotal, but nonetheless valuable, in my opinion. I guess if the phrase "appears to have been" were dropped in there somewhere, I would belive it to be more true. By the time the TF.Xs, many of which were combat veterans of a busy summer of '44, arrived at Banff many had been through partial repaints; the AEAF stripes were removed from both wing surfaces and the codes were reapplied as mentioned in my response to Ross's latest post. An examination of the photographic record (I have approx 300 404 Squadron photos at present) has me thinking that almost all repaints were done under field conditions. To add to the variation in upper surface greys, the olde codes and stripes were actually overpainted to effect removal, rather than being actually removed. Then later on at Banff or Dallachy (sorry, not near my notes), the upper half of the fuselage stripes were overpainted in local camo. Still later when the codes went from EE to EO at Dallachy the small codes above the wing roots on the fuselage flanks were overpainted and, at the same time, the final remnants of AEAF stripes on the lower fuselage were overpainted.

Through all stages at both Banff and Dallachy the repainting appears to have been done under field conditions. One ground crew member recounted for me the story of a "brush brigade" in the hangars during the January 1945 blizzard. While a snowstorm socked in Dallachy the vast majority of personnel (including aircrew) became members of the snow clearing party ("shovel brigade") and a very few others, mostly groundcrew, were shuffled of to Echelon (i.e. the servicing org inside the hangars as opposed to the flight line) to "put on the new letters".

I contend that all of this less-than-textbook refinishing activity led to a lot of variation in finish. thick paint over thin, thin over thick, all with different weathering characteristics imparted by differences in application technique and environment. While the various patches and splotches may have appeared to be Ocean Grey, Dark Sea Grey, what have you, to the distant or casual observer, could the truth of the matter simply be that what was actually being observed was application and weathering variation over time? EDSG seems to have been notoriously prone to aging change and weathering.

PL-V colours: I blieve this to be entirely correct.

Your point about the similarity in Dark Sea Grey and Light Slate Grey reflectivity is an interesting one. Thank you for that. I assume that the similarity could shift depending on the photographic materials (both film and papers) and processes (in front of the lens or in the darkroom) used to record it in monochrome though. Could you comment on that vis-a-vis the OP photo please? And how would Dull Red present in similar conditions?

Sky Blue? Interesting indeed?

USN scheme!?!? Hey, there's a Luft '46 SIG, perhaps were should start "The Pacific War '46" SIG!

Cheers and thanks again,

Terry

Terry

To be fair to Bob Jones the quote is a bit ambiguous as to mark numbers as it comes between a general observation about new Beaus, a specific reference to VIc's and then a discussion of X's, part of a seven-page article on Beaufighter colour schemes in Scale Models magazine of July 1974, itself Part 2 of a two issue coverage of the Beau (with plans) that IMHO is well worth obtaining.

When it comes to the MAP greys it would be virtually impossible to discern now whether paint observed at that time was just a variation of a single colour (caused by batch differences, application time differences and/or weathering) or the expedient application of non-standard colours. An RAF saying of the time was "Press on regardless" and the service had a tradition of improvising so if re-painting was being done in relatively primitive conditions under the exigencies of operations I'm not sure the niceties of the difference between, say, Ocean Grey and Dark Sea Grey would have been considered taxing. There is also sometimes inconsistency between description and official designation, even by those like M J F Bowyer who were specifically recording colour schemes. The blueish looking colours that observers interpreted to be Ocean Grey and Sky Blue might well have been caused by other factors including severe chalking of the paint surfaces. The inherent blue cast to some wartime Sky has long been something of a puzzle that I can only put down to manufacturer and/or batch variance.

As to reflectivity it is a guide to relative contrast and brightness only, all things being equal, and not a foolproof method of interpreting monochrome photographs. Dependent on predominant pigments and film type strange things can happen. An example is where browns with a high red pigment content appear very much darker than green in some photographs but the presumption is often that the darker colour represents the green. Recently I learned that (Japanese) aircraft of a particular unit presumed from the available photographs to be in a single dark green colour scheme were actually painted in a camouflage pattern of dark brown and dark green. The effect of film types on colours is often presented in terms of hard and fast rules but delving into this more closely I get the impression it is far from an exact science and very dependent on predominant pigment rather than just surface "colour". Unfortunately I don't know which pigments were common in all the MAP greys but the fact that they chalked quite badly can be ascertained even from photographs.

A 1942 letter from W R Merton of the Operational Research Section of Coastal Command (perhaps itself a clue to the existence of experimental schemes on operational aircraft) to RAE refers to paint "fading" on a Whitley in Temperate Sea scheme (the "fading" actually qualified by his further remarks as being mainly due to chalking) which increased reflectivity to between 20 and 30% whereas a "mean reflection factor of 8%" was considered optimum in tone for aircraft operating over the sea. Thus exposed and untreated greys might be expected to appear significantly brighter, lighter and possibly slightly more blueish than the paint as originally applied or any more recent touch ups. Even selective areas where the chalking had been rubbed down, perhaps incidentally, would appear darker to the eye. It would be quite feasible for badly chalked EDSG to approach Ocean Grey in reflectivity and for the latter to approach Sea Grey, Medium which in fact even some colour photographs attest to.

Dull Red diffuse reflectivity is slightly problematic because RAE record it as 18% whereas Geoff Thomas has it at 10% - citing the same RAE report! It would have been more stable than the greys and therefore might be expected to appear increasingly darker than the surrounding camouflage as that weathered and chalked. It is a modelling myth that all colours weather and fade equally. At 18% it should appear slightly lighter and brighter than both greys as new (all things being equal and again dependent on film type) but judging by Merton's report this contrast could fairly quickly be reversed.

Studying that photo I find it hard to accept that the fuselage sides are white and think it more likely that an overpaint of some sort is shown, perhaps affected by an underlying previous white finish or using a paint colour that did not match the upper surfaces very well. The wing surface and fuselage top reveal telltale signs of degradation and probable chalking whilst the dark solid-looking lower half of the rudder suggests re-doping, perhaps following damage, and might still be in red oxide. That is entirely speculative of course!

And a long way of saying your guess is as good as - and probably better - than mine!

Nick

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 9/6/2013 at 5:46 PM, rossm said:

Substantial edit as this post was a bit confusing

The link given quotes an Air Publication (from late 1944) giving the same scheme as in DTD360 Issue 2 of February 1943 which had been superceded by late 1944.

I assume this is just another example of, as Terry said, official documents playing catch-up with reality which has been complicated further by duplication of documents which then get out of step.

[For more on DTD360 and the evolution of the Coastal schemes have a look at the thread on Mosquitos with Medium Sea Grey vs Sky undersides. Eventually I'll update my web page on the topic but it'll be a while!]

This neatly shows, I think, that you have to be careful with official documents as they may not be the true source - in fact behind Terry's original comment I can visualise committees and sub-committees whose findings were probably issued as minutes and/or interim documents and taken up at unit level long before they reached DTD360 or similar 'top-level' documents.

Ross

n/m

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[rossm]

Ross,

I understand now. I went back and searched for DTD 360 and found your post and an earlier post by Edgar. I also went back over Archive files and found a reference to Azure Blue on Coastal Command Aircraft (Operational Research Section India), with reference to DTD 360. These are below.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark,

Thank you very much for posting that document - it is new information to me and extremely interesting - it explains how Hudsons, Blenheim Vs and Baltimores among others appeared in the grey/white scheme. It also raises the possibility of Azure Blue undersides but if I read it right it's only a recommendation from the research so may (or may not) have made it into actual use. I wish it had given details for the Long Range PRU scheme proposed by ORS (India) but we can't have everything and I'm not currently modelling (or likely to) anything overseas based

Re my and your earlier posts I think I just wasn't very clear - there is no difference in the information on colours, codes or serials but the dates are different. It just shows bureaucracy cannot keep up with a fluid situation and we have to take that into account. Multiple source documents with multiple amendments and issue numbers add to the fun. At least we can now justify Beaufighters in almost any scheme (except maybe PRU Mauve - is there a smiley for 'can of worms'?).

Actually I've never seen an example of a Beaufighter (or anything else) in the Coastal Special Duties B scheme of EDSG and Night but am I hijacking my own thread?

Ross

[Mark Mackenzie]

n/m

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 9/9/2013 at 12:53 AM, Terry @ Aviaeology said:

Interesting stuff! Now I'm really looking forward to getting my copy. I already have a Waddington book on OR in WWII but I think it is primarily focused on ASW, and not the whole scope of OR. Nonetheless, this post gives me cause to look at it anew.

Cheers,

Terry

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Col.]

Once again Terry I'd just like to say thanks for you posts detail the research you are doing into this subject and I'll look forward to seeing any future decal sheets you publish as a result of all your efforts.

[Daniel Cox]

Hi All,

Thanks for some terrific and informative reading, I appreciate it greatly. I've got a few things to add that may be of passing interest with respect to Beaufighter aircraft although do not provide or add to an answer for Ross.

An Australian Cypher Message from RAAF Kingway to RAAF Headquarters, AL847 dated 29 September 1943 referring to the inspection of a Beaufighter TF X at a Packing Unit notes the following: "(4) AIRCRAFT CAMOUFLAGED COASTAL WHITEX THIS ACCEPTED IN ORDER TO AVOID DELAY IN DESPATCH BUT ARRANGEMENTS FOR RESTORATION ORIGINAL BROWN/GREEN SCHEME AS REQUIRED BY YOU EXPECTED BECOME EFFECTIVE NEAR FUTURE"

Subsequently mention is made in an RAAF Air Force Headquarters Beaufighter Instruction, Numbered 22 of the following: "5. Camouflage painting other than "touching up" of damaged areas, is not to be carried out on erection except in the case of aircraft received from overseas with "Whitex" Coastal Command camouflage. Recipient units are to carry out this work, in accordance with Aircraft General Instructions Part 3 Section C Instruction No. 1. (Previous A.G.I. F.1 Issue 4)."

I don't recall seeing the term "Whitex" before and found that of some interest.

Quoted below is another document from 23 June 1943 that relates to the quality of the paint finish on British built Beaufighters as delivered to the RAAF in Australia as operated in the South West Pacific which may also be of interest:

"EXTRACTS FROM MISCELLANEOUS NOTES BY THE DIRECTOR

OF AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE - SERIAL NO.2,

PORT MORESBY 23rd June, 1943.

"2. Beaufighter Painting. There is no undercoat on Beaufighters. Paint is Synthetic Enamel which wears off at about 40 hours. In repainting, units here put Zinc Chromate first, then nitro cellulose camouflage dope. The Zinc Chrome lifts the original paint off in flakes. Something will have to be done about the paint.

If any of the Synthetic Enamel is available, which is doubtful, some should be sent here at once. If available some solvent for the enamel must be sent here.

If these are not available, experiments should be made to find material to patch, and also to remove the existing paint.

If some satisfactory means of patching the original paint has already been established, full particulars must be sent here. If not the possibility of removing all the original paint and repainting of all aircraft in Depots must be investigated with a view to carrying this out, if the time is reasonable compared with the effect of peeling paint at about 40 hours flying."

Has anyone found anything in extant British documents that refer to any paint problems on Northern Hemisphere operated Beaufighter aircraft?

Cheers,

Daniel.