Buffalo Mk.Is in the Far East

[occa]

The colors of duck egg shells vary from bluish over yellowish to greenish, that likely is partly where the original confusion came from.

I had a thread here where I suggested the underside colors used for the Buffalo could have been similar to this:

But of course there are as many opinions about as posters on BM ...

[mhaselden]

14 hours ago, LDSModeller said:

 

Hi Fernado

As far as Temperate land Scheme Colours go I would suggest reading through the following Link

RAF Colours & Markings

 

In reading through AMO A926/40 (12 December 1940)  Note the following, I qoute:

 

 

Note: The term Sky Type "S" AKA Duck Egg Blue under surfaces

Duck Egg Blue is a Blue Green or Green Blue colour. You ask about Dupont 71-021, check out my swatch which is DuPont 71-021Sky Type S-Grey or a US manufactured Duck Egg Blue AKA Sky Type S.  Note the Duck Egg Blue is a "very pale blue with a greenish tinge"

DuPont 71-021 Duck Egg Blue

 

There is nothing "grey" about the colour, I really don't get the continual hang up modellers have with it being a Blue grey/Light Grey et el

 

Few things to Note about the RAF Buffalo

1) Brewster Buffalo Mk I was NOT Lend lease, they were paid for with British Gold/Pounds.

2) The Buffalo were ordered around July/August 1940 so consider the colours fighters in RAF service at the time eg Spitfire/Hurricane.

As to Interior colours (Green painted cockpit/Aluminum engine bearer supports/engine bay interior), would be similar or same  for Buffalo, whch I belive is born out in this photo.

 

 

As far as the Temperate Land Scheme, as stated previous Dark Earth/Dark Green, again US manufactured - not equivelent (later in the war), but would be similar to British MAP colours.

488 Squadron was the first New Zealand Fighter Squadron, so is quite important to me. When 67 Squadron handed over their Buffalo to 488 Squadron, 67's sqn codes had to be painted out, to be painted over. In all the photos I have looked at (though Black/White) there is no great discernable difference in the painted over areas (RAF DE vs US DE).

 

Undersides - going by the above AMO, Duck Egg Blue aka Sky - Whether this is a DuPont colour? Very possible, it could have been Berry Brothers etc. DuPont seemed to supply a number of the big US aircraft manufacturers, such as Curtiss, Chance Vought (especially with F4U-1a Corsair interior colours). The important thing is the colour is NOT Grey...... or Blue Grey but a Duck Egg Blue colour. Look at these real Duck Egg Blue Eggs

Duck Egg Blue Eggs

 

For the  Fuselage band and spinner read the above AMO link and see section II

 

Re the Photo recon Buffalo, not aware of any schematics, as only a couple/three Buffalo were used. Very possible that the  flare dispenser tube was removed at rear of airframe (a opening already there) and camers rigged to carry out required photo taking (just my thoughts on this).

If you have any queries on RAF Buffalo, let me know - did a lot of research when building my model - I believe it's very faithful to the real thing (just my humble opinion)

 

 

 

Regards

 

Alan

 

 

 

 

Alan,

 

You raise a valid point about the 488 Sqn airframes and the lack of apparent overpainting.  I'll need to check my image files but I seem to recall some evidence of overpainting on the well-known pic of W8198 'NF-U'.  That said, as noted in my original post, it's tough to make a positive determination in part due to the lack of good-quality photographs of different airframes.

 

I disagree with your comment about the fuselage band on a number of fronts.  The AMO was for UK-based aircraft but, while it probably strongly influenced the marking patterns in Far East Command, the markings applied to aircraft in Malaya, Singapore and Burma were locally devised and ordered.  The colour pics of 27 Sqn Blenheims clearly show a shade other than MAP Sky (probably close to MAP Sky Blue) being used for the starboard undersides and fuselage band on those fighter aircraft.  As I noted in my first post, I struggle to believe that fighter Blenheims at Kallang would be marked with a Sky Blue fuselage band only for fighter Buffalos on the same airfield to be painted with a Sky band just a few weeks later. 

 

As to the PR Buffalos, there were 2 airframes modified, a short-range aircraft (W8136) that simply had the guns removed and a single vertical camera installed and a long-range airframe (W8166) that had a pair of overlapping cameras of longer focal length.  According to Charlie Wareham, the camera was sighted using the window in the floor of the Buffalo fuselage.  Suspicion is that the camera was located under the pilot seat to sight through that window.  Putting it further aft in the location of the flare chute would have introduced longitudinal stability problems due to the weight of the camera, lens and film. 

 

Great to hear from you, though.  Hope you and yours have a great Christmas.

All the best,

Mark

[Guest]

I think I am getting another one of those "headaches" again, you know the kind you get when you are trying to get the colors on your current build just right? The further we get away from an event the less we know, thusly leading to speculation and a "best guess" scenario. As much as I love these discussions I think that for myself I will glean all the information provided and give it my best go, knowing that I will probably never get it "perfect" (is there such a thing in plastic modeling?) and that we need to be satisfied with our best effort. What we have to realize gentleman is that we are dealing with history (one historian, can't remember the name unfortunately, quipped that "in the end, all history is here say".) and we as "historians of a sort" can only reconstruct the past and force ourselves to be happy with the results. Remember back in the day when we built kits OOB and loved it? Remember guys, as much as we love history and aviation, in the end it is all about re-enacting history in our own small way by building these now quite expensive plastic replicas (I remember building S Box Revell kits that showed the price at 98 cents) and experiencing the small thrill of having a replica of an aircraft from a time we much romanticized, not being able to truly understand the blood, sweat, treasure, and tears involved in the building, flying, and fighting involved. Regardless, I was able to gain a better appreciation for all these dynamics, and the warriors who flew the aircraft we had read and heard about when the information we were receiving was many times first hand. Well, I didn't mean to get all philosophical on you guys, but with the spirit of the season, all I can say is, let's just all build a model, get it a "right" as we can, have a good time, and remember why we started in the first place. By the way, these types of discussions are why Britmodeller is my favorite modeling site, hands down. I can always count on help from my mates on Britmodeller, so give the administrators three cheers for all their hard work. And thank you all for providing great information to me so I can make my builds the best I can. All the best to all of you, and happy holidays!

Cheers

Spotfire Addict

[Greenshirt]

5 minutes ago, Spitfire addict said:

... I will glean all the information provided and give it my best go...

 

 

Amen, brother. 

[Nick Millman]

FWIW there were three aircraft types supplied to "duck egg blue" (rather than Sky) requirements with under surfaces apparently painted in a pale blue colour - Martlet, Mohawk and Buffalo, with a possibility that the earliest batch of Tomahawks also sported a similar colour. The colour appears deeper than RAF Sky Blue but lighter than Azure blue, similar in appearance to the American colour Light Blue 27. The Martlet colour is confirmed by the FAA Museum example, the Mohawk colour suggested by extant colour film footage and the Buffalo described by 67 Sqn's PO Bingham-Wallis' (my emphasis):-- " . .  aircraft were left as delivered from the manufacturers, pale blue underneath. The band of blue forward of the tailplane would be a shade lighter than the sky blue " with further corroboration from a Japanese pilot's description of "sky blue" (sora iro 空色), a hue "beautiful" enough to be noticed. Ron Belling stated that in South Africa Mohawks had their factory Sky (sic) under surfaces re-painted in what he identified as SAAF Sky Blue 'B'. I do wonder about that re-painting business but SAAF 'B' which started out similar to Azure blue (with a slight violet undertone) reportedly faded to a powder blue closely similar to FS 35450.    

 

In October 1941 overseas aircraft, including those operating in the Far East, were instructed to have their under surfaces "camouflaged" Azure blue. This requirement was stated in postagram 8.59966.II/F.O.6  dated 30/10/41 (copy shown at my blog), was repeated in a 29 Jan 1942 memorandum about PRU Mosquito colours and confirmed in an RAE letter to MAP on 13 August 1943 which refers to the under surface colours as recommended by O.R.S (India). 

 

All of this is cumulatively consistent with variation(s) of Azure blue which is regularly described colloquially as "sky blue" in RAF communications just to confuse things. Whether the arrival of the Buffalos in the Far East already painted in a quasi-Azure blue colour was simply fortuitous or part of some cunning design is not yet known and perhaps never will be.

 

Nick

 

PS Mark, anything further on that intriguing matter emailed?

[Fernando]

Hi, everyone,

 

Reading the Kagero book on the Buff, I found that, in the "Colours" section, the following paints are mentioned:

 

- Dark Earth "33B.182";

- Dark Green "33B.185";

 

Those for upper surfaces camouflages. For undersides the following, as optional, with the second "more popular":

 

- "American equivalent Sky/Duck Egg Green 33B.335"

- "American equivalent of RAF's Sky Blue 33B.298"; clarifying that "slightly lighter than the RAF original".

 

There are several inaccuracies in the text that put everything under suspicion, but the presence of paint code numbers (from a catalog unknown to me) opens the possibility that at least some of the information has a solid source. And of course, some consistency with what Nick has just said above.

 

Do anyone recognize those paint codes?

 

Fernando

Edited December 25, 2016 by Fernando

[jimmaas]

With all due respect, I would suggest the Kagero book of the Buffalo is a questionable source.  There are numerous errors throughout.

 

Or to paraphrase the great Harry Woodman, there are many poor references on the Buffalo, and the Kagero book is based on all of them.

[Nick Millman]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

Hi, everyone,

 

Reading the Kagero book on the Buff, I found that, in the "Colours" section, the following paints are mentioned:

 

- Dark Earth "33B.182";

- Dark Green "33B.185";

 

Those for upper surfaces camouflages. For undersides the following, as optional, with the second "more popular":

 

- "American equivalent Sky/Duck Egg Green 33B.335"

- "American equivalent of RAF's Sky Blue 33B.298"; clarifying that "slightly lighter than the RAF original".

 

There are several inaccuracies in the text that put everything under suspicion, but the presence of paint code numbers (from a catalog unknown to me) opens the possibility that at least some of the information has a solid source. And of course, some consistency with what Nick has just said above.

 

Do anyone recognize those paint codes?

 

Fernando

 

Those 33B codes are just the RAF stores vocabulary reference numbers for 5 gallon containers of cellulose paint to DTD 83A or 308 rather than paint colour specifications per se. Each service paint colour was available in half-gallon, one gallon or 5 gallon containers in cellulose, synthetic to DTD 314 or 317 and in some cases lanolin to DTD 420B, each with a unique stores reference number. For example the one gallon container for Dark Green synthetic was 33B.202 and the half gallon container of Sky cellulose 33B.333.

 

The 5 gallon containers had separate numbers for home and overseas use. 

 

33B was the stores section prefix for paints and finishes.  

 

Nick 

 

[Fernando]

Hi, jimmaas,

 

Good saying! As I said, several inaccuracies made everything questionable.

 

Fernando

[mhaselden]

Sorry for resurrecting this old thread but a specific question was asked about the colour(s) applied to the Buffalo's undercarriage legs.  Just "found" (probably old news to many people) this rather over-exposed LIFE image from the famous shoot showing the unpacking of Buffalo W8202 at Seletar (click the link below).  Note that the erk nearest the camera is holding the wing-end of an undercarriage leg.  This pretty much tells me that the interior of the undercarriage leg was painted in something darker than the underside colour. 

 

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/0da2dd49c3620050_large

 

[Nick Millman]

Hi Mark

 

Unfortunately I can't show it here but I'll send you another photo which seems to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the undercarriage legs were painted in a different, darker colour with only the external face visible when the undercart was retracted painted in the under surface colour. It is also quite revealing of different wing camo patterns.

 

Warning: There are pots of paints and something that looks very much like a modeller's airbrush in view! ;-)

 

Regards

Nick

[mhaselden]

3 minutes ago, Nick Millman said:

 

Warning: There are pots of paints and something that looks very much like a modeller's airbrush in view! ;-)

 

 

Careful, Nick...that's gusting perilously close to a discussion of rubber camo masks!  

[Finn]

Here are a couple more Life pics:

 

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/48e84d72042eb1de_large

 

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/6c9aa1345008c70a_large

 

Jari

[mhaselden]

Thanks Jari.  I'd seen both of those before and, while they aren't quite as convincing as one with the undercarriage leg being pulled out of a crate, taken together they present (to me, at least) categorical evidence that the insides of the undercarriage legs were painted a darker shade than the underside colour.  Now the key challenge is identifying the actual colour...and here we really are in guesstimation mode.  In many pics it does appear to be darker than Dark Earth so it could be MAP Dark Green.  Alternatively it could be a variant of Zinc Chromate Green.  I doubt we'll ever know with surety unless someone discovers the painting specs for the B339E in an archive/loft/barn somewhere.

[Guest]

I would go with the zinc chromate for the landing gear because it makes the most sense, especially since many components were painted separately. Why would they choose a MAP color when they need to spray that particular part in a corrosion resistant paint? I have seen plenty of pics where aluminum paint was applies to the whole landing gear structure, then others in zinc chromate/amber green. Then again, anything is possible, the black and white picture guessing game. Too bad we can't get official documentation from Brewester, but once again, another historical ambiguity. You would think we would accept all these ambiguities at face value, but the OCD in us /we modelers won't let us will it? Still, I love these discussions, always stimulating.

Cheers

[YK GOH]

Am new to Britmodeller and only recently started to browse through the various threads of interests to me. Being in Singapore, am obviously interested in RAF operations in the Far East. I have also learnt much from reading expert views and the generous contributions from those who have done much research.

Came across this thread and I tried using the colourisation software, https://colourise.sg, which was developed by a research institute here and made available to the public. It was mentioned that the software was optimised for photographs with human facial features and tropical vegetation. I had tried it out on my old black/white family photos, and they sure bring out the colours vividly. However, when tried on WWII black and white photos, the results were varied...and poorly if they are not original photos. Shown here is one of the LIFE photos I colourised and hopefully will help to better guess the original colours of the aircraft parts....or may cause confusion? Am sure there are colourisation software that is optimised for WWII aircraft, as I have came across some beautiful colourised WWII photos on the internet. Perhaps some has already been used on these LIFE photos already? 

Am grateful am on Britmodeller as it is a treasure trove of information.

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by YK GOH
Colourised photo deleted

[Work In Progress]

Artificially coloured photographs are of zero value in modelling and can serve only to obscure the facts.

[DennisTheBear]

3 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Artificially coloured photographs are of zero value in modelling and can serve only to obscure the facts.

I tend to disagree to an extent. If you are using a known colour value from one point, for example the white in an eye, then you can get a decent (but admittedly not perfect) approximation for the rest of the image.

Using a digital scan from the original frame will make a difference.

Just as the tools and materials used in creating the models that we build has advanced giving us finer detail, so has the software (and hardware for that matter) that allows for recovery of colour information.

 

DennisTheBear

[Work In Progress]

No, you really can't. If there is no hue information then it cannot be derived.

Outsourcing blatant guesswork to machines does not make it authoritative. This is a travesty in terms of historical research, and worse than useless, as the images get around and in time people forget, or are not informed, that information not in the original image has been inserted. It is akin to forgery.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Work In Progress

[YK GOH]

I sincerely apologise for venturing into a sensitive topic that borders into the ethical use of photographs. My post was more to highlight the potential help of advancing digital technologies in our hobby.  I agree that using publicly available colourisation software should only be for private enjoyment and not to be used to promote a case to justify what the original colours are.

 

Even in today's camera film and digital technology, the same panel would turn up in different shades at different angles, time of the day and camera settings. Nothing beats having the factory drawings on the paint use during production, but again wear and tear in the field will again complicates the picture. Thus such complexity would be even more pronounced using colourisation software, especially by a layman in this field.

 

There are examples of professionally colourised black/white photographs already been done.

 

However, as mentioned above, caution must be exercised on whether they bring back the glory of the original colours.

 

Specifically to this topic on WWII, hopefully organisations like LIFE will collaborate with the RAF Museum or IWM  (or the Museums themselves) to engage professional digital image artists on such projects based on authoritative references.  The information that the colourised photographs are not original but treated, should always remain embedded with the photo and that will be another challenge.

Edited April 28, 2019 by YK GOH
Links deleted

[Ed Russell]

Colourised photos are an abomination. They are asking you to forget about research and believe what some digital twit's programme thinks the colour ought to be. These pictures are going to be gospel in a few years time and used as 'evidence' by someone who wants an outlandish colour scheme for his favourite model. I am sure YK GOHs' motives are sound enough but if I was him I would delete those photos and links. In 10 years time they will be 'evidence' about some erk's hair colour.

[YK GOH]

Hi Ed, well understood and fully agree.

Rgds,

YK

[Stevejj]

Just read through the thread. It seems to me that in the pursuit of perfection is all very well and to be commended but when the information available is not definitive then why don't we think if it looks right it is right (even though it may be a little adrift). Don't get started on scale colour, size and distance as has been going on in the model railway world for years.

The only way to know if the colour is right is to have an original paint chip analysis done or so I've been told. 

Paint em as accurately as you can and the hell with it.

All the best 

Steve

 

 

[3DStewart]

1 hour ago, Stevejj said:

Just read through the thread. It seems to me that in the pursuit of perfection is all very well and to be commended but when the information available is not definitive then why don't we think if it looks right it is right (even though it may be a little adrift). Don't get started on scale colour, size and distance as has been going on in the model railway world for years.

The only way to know if the colour is right is to have an original paint chip analysis done or so I've been told. 

Paint em as accurately as you can and the hell with it.

All the best 

Steve

 

Steve, I agree with you, but there are some modellers for whom getting exactly the right shade of paint is really important, or for whom finding out the colour of paint used on a particular part of an aircraft at a particular time is also really important.  You can't say it's wrong as different people get their satisfaction from different things about the hobby. 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by 3DStewart

[Stevejj]

21 hours ago, 3DStewart said:

Steve, I agree with you, but there are some modellers for whom getting exactly the right shade of paint is really important, or for whom finding out the colour of paint used on a particular part of an aircraft at a particular time is also really important.  You can't say it's wrong as different people get their satisfaction from different things about the hobby. 

 

Sorry if any of my post came across as criticism of anyone wanting perfection that's not what I intended. As you say each to their own

All the best

Steve