Buffalo Mk.Is in the Far East

[Fernando]

Hi, Gentlemen,

 

Prompted by the 75th anniversary of the Japanese invasion of Malaya, I was persuaded to break my line of German/European builds (now that I dwell at Bonn) and build something along that theme. I got a vintage Tamiya kit, which can be built into a good model with a little bit of effort and updates, but was confronted by the uncertainity of the colours in which they were painted.

 

Which is the "current thinking" about those? Doing a search in this very forum I found mostly knowledgeadble discussions and educated personal opinions. Would this serve as a "primer" for the... ehm... "consensus" (in diplomacy we have a funny phrase that is "consensus in the dissensus", which we use when we have at least locked horns, no mean achievement in our business). Bear in mind that I use Du Pont paints mostly because they are the only ones I got a catalog, and  FS nomenclature as they are well-known and easily available in hobby paints.

 

1) Interior colour: "American made" British Gray-Green (like Du Pont 71-036); strut wells underside colour; wheel recesses Aluminum. Undercarriage legs (at least the fronts) a camouflage paint (your pick)

 

2) Upper camo: "American made" DE/DG. DE a darker/richer variety than that used by, say, Curtiss in Tomahawks and Bell in Airacobras (Du Pont 71-035? -I very much like FS30140 as modellers' paint, though impossible to find nowadays; long ago there was a Polly S or Aeromaster one- Possibly "cut" with paint left over from Belgian order?); DG also "richer" (= darker and possibly more olive -in fact more similar to MAP paint -similar to FS34083?) than that used by Curtiss (allegedly similar to FS34092)? Similar to FS34056? (note that this would put the colour easily in the RLM70 range)

 

3) Lower paint: Wow, man, this is difficult. It seems to be accepted that the "fighter" recognition fuselage bands were painted in true MAP Sky (similar to FS35622?) and that were "a tad lighter" than the paint in the undersurface. That could mean many things.

a) The airframes were painted in an "American made" Sky Type S, such as Du Pont "Sky Type S-Gray" 71-021 (which is held to be "greyer" than the rather "vivid light green" in the MAP colour -what would be a aproximation in the modellers' world?). Another version (?) of this colour (Fuller-made?) is shown in colour pictures of Bostons and it looks like a "creamy light grey" (akin to FS36622?) Problem with this latter colour is that the MAP Sky band would be almost the same shade, if not actually darker; besides, you would be hard pressed to say it is a "light blue" (see below).

b ) Based on witnesses accounts (in the sense that "the band was a tad lighter than the light blue in the fuselage"), the airframes were painted in a darker/more vivid "Sky Blue", of either unknown procedence (possibly a bluer variant of "Sky Type S-Gray" by some other manufacturer), or the colour in Du Pont catalogue known as "Sky Blue" 71-061 (or a similar paint in the catalogue of some other manufacturer).

 

Does this summary shows the dreaded "informed ignorance" that affects our hobby? What are the thoughts of the esteemed readership?

 

Merry Christmas to all!

 

Fernando

 

[mhaselden]

Hi Fernando,

 

No such thing as "consensus" I'm afraid.  Until someone uncovers documentation of the actual paints applied to RAF Buffalos, we'll be limited to interpretation and a degree of guesswork.  I'm sure others will be along to comment on some of this but this is my understanding:

 

Interior.  Only the cockpit area was painted in a US equivalent to RAF interior grey green.  The rest of the fuselage forward of the cockpit firewall and aft of the seat was aluminium.

Undercarriage Bays.  This gets tricky as it's rather hard to discern exactly what's going on but it seems, based on the LIFE photos, that the interior undercarriage bay sections that formed part of the wing structure were painted the same as the underside colour.  All other areas were aluminium because they were part of the fuselage structure (as per my Interior comment above).

Undercarriage Legs.  Can of worms #1.  There is still much debate about the interior of the undercarriage legs.  Some say it's the same as the underside colour, some say interior grey green and some say one of the upper surface camo colours.  Photographic evidence is contradictory.  I lean towards grey-green or an upper surface colour (likely dark green) but that's just an opinion.

Upper Surface Camo.  US equivalents for DE/DG but there's some question over which specific paints were used.  Brewster Bermudas slated for delivery to the RAF showed a rather light-toned DE more akin to the "sand and spinach" scheme.  However, the Buffalo seems to have been painted in a much darker DE.  Photographic evidence of repainted airframes in Singapore suggest that perhaps the US paints were slightly darker in tone than the MAP paints, but that's a tough call. 

Lower Surface Camo.  This was certainly US equivalent to MAP Sky but precisely what shade is open to discussion.  Eyewitness accounts indicate a pale blue shade but, as we know, very pale green, blue and grey can, under different lighting conditions, look very similar.  My personal view is that it's probably pretty close to MAP Sky but perhaps slightly more blue/grey in tone.  Certainly it's not a deeply saturated (or more vivid) colour - that simply wouldn't have passed muster with the MAP factory inspectors.

Fuselage Band.  The LIFE photos of 27 Sqn Blenheim fighters taken at Kallang in April 1941 suggest the fighter band on those airframes was very close to MAP Sky Blue.  I find it hard to believe that fighter Buffalos operating from the same airfield would have the fighter recognition marking painted in a different colour (ie MAP Sky).  Therefore, I believe the fighter band was MAP Sky Blue.  This would align with the relative shade of it compared to the underside and would account for the tonal difference between it and the underside colour that is seen on monochromatic photos.

 

Hope this helps.  Now break out the popcorn and let the discussions commence!

 

Cheers,
Mark

[Greenshirt]

Mark's post now dutifully saved...

 

I've followed your discussions on RAF Buffaloes but this is the first/best summary I've seen. 

 

 

[dancho]

This is like some kind of bizarre parlor game--"Tell us the color of this man's tie based on a black and white photograph and some of his emails." Your current thinking is just as good as anyone else's. Just whose current thinking is more equal than others? I wonder. I challenge anyone who "weighs in" to bring some sort of proof, then share the source of their "current thinking." If it is a black and white photo--share it or note where it can be found. If it's "part of my private collection" then it is not acceptable. I have a genuine photo of King Kong on top of the Empire State Building. Did you know he was real? I'm sorry, though, the photo is in my private collection and I told a man in a blue hat that I would never publish it. Sorry.

 

Note to kids at home: These folks just like to argue over opinions. It does not mean they know any more than you do, and if they don't "show their work" they're a bit less credible than you are. So don't let it get you down if your "private collection" doesn't measure up. It never will. P.S. My new book "King Kong was Real" will be out in the Autumn of 2017.   

[mhaselden]

I'm just sitting here shaking my head at the last post. 

 

I've spent more than 15 years researching the air campaigns over Malaya and Singapore.  I've shared the fruits of that research, including identifying source material, on this forum and elsewhere.  I've tried to help those who've expressed an interest in learning more...and, in turn, I've learned from their ideas and contributions.  It's what grown-ups do when they try to collaborate and push forward the state of "current thinking". 

 

So, in the spirit of the season, I won't articulate the words that are bouncing round in my head and will simply wish Dancho a Merry Christmas in hopes he finds the "proof" he's looking for. 

[tempestfan]

Hmm,  Dan, I used to find your posts intelligent, humorous and knowledgeable when I was a member at the ATF. This one is one I don't quite understand. In the relatively short time of my membership here, I have learnt that Mark probably knows more about Buffaloes in RAF service than possibly the other members combined. And never patronising. Enough threads to testify. And I think I am old enough to be able to tell a self appointed expert from a genuine one.  You should consider an apology. 

[jimmaas]

I subscribe completely to Mark's analysis above.  To add a couple of items, both colorwise and other:

 

- Brewster applied RAF camouflage following the standard single engine pattern issued by MAP.  Thus, there are 'A' and 'B' schemes (and a couple examples with colors reversed).  Do NOT follow most artwork showing a particular Buffalo since they habitually get some camouflage pattern elements from one airplane, and part from another.  I'm having trouble with Photobucket these days, but I posted an illustration on Hyperscale - search using the term 'RAF Buffalo Paint' but ignore the description of undersurface color, that's old info long superseded.

 

-Upper wing roundels are almost at the tips for SEA Buffalos.  They are not further inboard, as seen on ex-Belgian 339B's repainted in the UK.

 

- Underwing roundels come in two styles - initially an incorrect 1-2-3 ratio (think of French style roundels) and eventually the correct 1-3-5 ratio.  I think Mark has been working on identifying the changeover point so he should chime in on that.

 

-RAF 339E's did not have the little identification lights on the upper wing tips.  Just sand them off.  The secondary antenna wire goes to the right side, opposite the fixture for the USN F2A. 

 

-There's a complete Pilot's Manual including cockpit layout at http://www.warbirdforum.com/buffman.htm

 

-Hope this helps - Jim

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Excellent post Mark 👍

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

 

Of the expertise. When I see "mhaselden" writing something about Brewster Buffaloes I stop glimpsing and start reading. The posting which followed (see above) was in my opinion completely unnecessary. More so because Mark started with words - I quote - "No such thing as "consensus" I'm afraid".

 

 

Of the Buffalo undercarriage leg colours. Finnish Air Force saw the need to paint Brewster undercarrieage leg upper sides with camouflage colours black (retraction struts, usually) and green (main leg). Originally they were painted with aluminium dope over chromate primer as was US Navy standard then. Dark Earth and Dark Green would be perfectly natural choice for RAF Buffaloes. For me there is no worms in can.

 

 

Merry Christmas!

Kari

[Rabbit Leader]

Mark and to the others that have spoken up and supported him - very well answered. 

 

I suspect someone here has just finished a kit of a Buffalo and let's just say that - he/she does not agree with what they have interpreted from their own B&W research! 

 

For the record - I believe that King Kong was an albino and I don't care what anyone else has to say about that, but I'd never post such a rude and turse reply to anyones post, that's worse than swearing and the Mods don't approve of that. 

 

There may be other forum on the interweb that condone these types of blatant attacks - however my friend 'Britmodeller' ain't one of them!! 

 

I nomally end my post with Cheers... however I think that 'Humbug' is more appropriate this time round.. Dave 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Rabbit Leader

[dancho]

There's a consensus about one thing-- that Mark is a fine fellow and by appearing to question his assertions I'm in the wrong and should apologize. I wasn't questioning Mark's assertions. My post was directed at the OP. I do apologize for the sarcastic tone. I tend to get steamed about this type of discussion in general. If you assert something, provide the evidence along with the assertion. Is that an assault on the integrity of the one making the assertion? Of course it isn't. I really can't imagine what prompted Mark to reply as he did and these other remarks are even more mystifying. 

 

I am tired of playing verbal games over being attacked myself for daring to disagree with the "prevailing opinion." You can build whatever you want, any way you want, and I'll approve. But if you start out on a forum with the position that "my opinion is not to be questioned, because I am a special, privileged person of a higher status than you" then I'll do my best to thwart you. Making unsupported claims, then getting belligerent when challenged, and trying to intimidate anyone who disagrees, all the while providing little or no evidence to support your position, is just sloppy scholarship and deserves to be challenged.

 

I'm on a quixotic quest to rid scale modeling of a particular type of "author"--who promotes him or herself tirelessly on forums, produces shiny books (which are free of any references or supporting documents) and becomes a "revered figure" for no better reason that a good work ethic and a talent for knowing what sells. I guess, in our world, this type of person does succeed. But as long as I can post on this forum (which may not be too much longer) I'm going to state that any discussion about the color of paint from seventy or eighty years ago should be a discussion about sources and references and witnesses and logical deduction, not about who said it and how much credibility they have as an expert.

 

By the way, it IS easier to be a critic than a researcher. It's easier to throw bricks at the cathedral than to build it. That does not make the critic or the gatekeeper into a villain. It just goes with the territory. You choose to take on the role of authority, then you have to deal with demands for proof. It's not a "no fair" situation, and getting upset is pointless. I would never publicly criticize a model built by a hobbyist for pleasure. But claiming to have "special knowledge" is not part of any hobby.

 

None of this applies to Mark, since I'm not familiar with his work and know nothing about him. So relax. Merry Christmas to all contributors to this thread, or Happy Holidays, whichever may apply. Don't wear yourselves out beating me up, or you won't have any energy for the parties.

[Finn]

Just leave it in the box :

 

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/c165c33f652e0792.html

 

Jari

[mhaselden]

Dancho,

 

I suspect there was a degree of "ready-fire-aim" to your original post.  There have been several discussions on this forum on Far East Buffalos and Blenheims all of which were conducted in a polite, respectful manner with people exchanging various ideas on the available information.  Nobody put themselves up as "the authority" on the subject and yet that's exactly what your first post seemed to criticize me of doing (despite my clear statements to the contrary in this thread).

 

It did seem that (in the words of my dear old Grandad) you were shouting before you were hurt, hence the reaction from me and others.  If the thread had descended into name-calling and "opinion-itis" then your email might have been justified.  As it was, the only negative criticism was originated by you not by those actually discussing the topic. 

 

In closing, I respectfully disagree with your assertion regarding "special knowledge".  If someone has spent weeks trawling through primary source material to come up with an assessment, surely that must count for something?  If that person is then willing to share that hard-won knowledge with others, shouldn't that be praised instead of criticised?

 

Merry Christmas,

Mark   

[mhaselden]

13 minutes ago, Finn said:

Just leave it in the box :

 

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/c165c33f652e0792.html

 

Jari

 

Yeah but what wood was the box made of?  We need to know so we can get the right beige/brown tones and then ensure we paint correctly-scaled wood grain effect.  Anybody know what the FS number is for "knotty pine"?

Edited December 23, 2016 by mhaselden

[Graham Boak]

It may be an ideal to always go back to first principles, but it would unavoidably lead to very large postings, and by the nature of the internet very repetitive ones.   So it is easier (and better) for those who have already done the spadework to make statements that might appear superficial and potentially unfounded but are actually anything but.  After all, if you know little of the subject then perhaps it is up to you to at least learn a little before shouting the odds.  Look for previous postings on the subject.  Look for books on the subject.  Then you would have encountered Mark's name and work, you would have learnt that much of what you are asking for has already been delivered, and why comments from Mark (and indeed a handful of similar posters) are to be relied upon as worthy of consideration.  

 

If this discussion did not go beyond the interpretation of B&W photos, this does not mean that comments were not built upon a solid foundation of earlier work that goes beyond this.  Assuming otherwise is superficial and (as it happens) ill-informed.

[dancho]

Well, youngsters, take heed. If you dare to question your betters, you're immature, lazy, ill-informed, probably delusional and needlessly beligerent. You'll be attacked by a halt-dozen different people on a forum that doesn't allow attacks, and they'll get away with it because they're clever enough to use "innuendo." Did I leave anything out? I asked for just one thing--evidence--and I've been mobbed by the masters of innuendo. There is a "logical fallacy" called the "appeal to authority." Of course, if one has a book published by Squadron or Osprey, that would be a legitimate source for Wikipedia, so there is an element of hypocrisy in a Wikipedia article on that subject.

 

Oh dear. Now I'm in for it.

[mhaselden]

Here you go, Dancho.  Read the prior posts related to this topic and come back with any questions you may have:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fernando]

Hi, Gentlemen,

 

I feel I should apologize. I just wanted to build a realistic looking Buffalo Mk.I, not leaving anyone feeling having been mowed down. Perhaps I should have just built the thing and painted it like a BoB Hurricane; few people would have noticed anything out of place in it anyway. But it looks I have prompted what some people consider a good summary of the  state of knowledge on the matter, and that is no mean thing.

 

On the matter of the "Equivalent Sky Type S- Gray": I have a pdf with a copy of a "Du Pont Catalog", where a "chip" for a colour so called and numbered 71-021 is present. It looks like a light grey with a slight greenish hue (if artificially saturated, it goes to the green side). Probably could be made up by mixing a Light Grey (like 36440) to MAP Sky. But no-one would have called it a "light blue". Besides, the "Sky Gray Conspiration" is considered debunked (though the aforementiond colour could easily pass for Sky Gray or Light gull Grey)

 

On the other hand, in another thread, a member brought up a Fuller colour to the same name, numbered "3-1 No.323", which looks like a classic Light Blue-Grey much in the range of RLM76. Besides, there are the Boston colour pictures.

 

The question is: should the "Light Grey-greenish" (like 71-021) still be preferred to the "Light Blue-Gray" (like the latter colour) as a "Equivalent Sky Type S-Grey" version?

 

On a different path, and to take people out of the colour conundrum: are there any schematic on the camera instalation on the two PR Buffaloes? In another thread a member ("Antoine") claimed to be working on a model of W.8136 (the one with one F.24 camera), and had linked some pics from an Aussie forum, but the server does not hold them anymore. Does someone have any information on these?

 

Thank you very much. Merry Christmas again. Frohe Weihnachten, as they say here.

 

Fernando

 

EDIT: Geez, the threads I have been consulting appeared all together just above this post!

Edited December 23, 2016 by Fernando

[Mike]

47 minutes ago, dancho said:

Oh dear. Now I'm in for it.

 

As a moderator of this site I've seen a fair few trolls in my time, and people itching to start a row.  Regardless of your actual intentions, you are coming across as just that.  We can manage to have sensible conversations without scoring imaginary internet points on Britmodeller - not all the time, but most of it.  Please drop the attitude, and either participate in the discussion in a positive and productive way whilst being polite and respectful to your fellow members, or go get yourself an egg-nog and keep quiet.  Season of Goodwill, remember? 

[Rabbit Leader]

6 hours ago, dancho said:

Well, youngsters, take heed. If you dare to question your betters, you're immature, lazy, ill-informed, probably delusional and needlessly beligerent. You'll be attacked by a halt-dozen different people on a forum that doesn't allow attacks, and they'll get away with it because they're clever enough to use "innuendo." Did I leave anything out? I asked for just one thing--evidence--and I've been mobbed by the masters of innuendo. There is a "logical fallacy" called the "appeal to authority." Of course, if one has a book published by Squadron or Osprey, that would be a legitimate source for Wikipedia, so there is an element of hypocrisy in a Wikipedia article on that subject.

 

Oh dear. Now I'm in for it.

 

Well, well - if there was ever a need for a 'dislike' button, then the post above certainly calls for one.

Personally I would prefer a slightly different name for this button - possibly one that rhymes with the word 'Banker'!!

.. Now I'm probably 'in for it' as well - but at least it would have been worth it just to get this off my chest.

 

Please do not spoil a forum that is designed for knowledgeable, like-minded and friendly modellers that are happy to share valuable and informed information.

By all means if you have evidence of your own, then let’s see it. If you don't then we request that you move on quietly.    

 

Good Day... Dave.

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Rabbit Leader

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, jimmaas said:

I subscribe completely to Mark's analysis above.  To add a couple of items, both colorwise and other:

 

- Brewster applied RAF camouflage following the standard single engine pattern issued by MAP.  Thus, there are 'A' and 'B' schemes (and a couple examples with colors reversed).  Do NOT follow most artwork showing a particular Buffalo since they habitually get some camouflage pattern elements from one airplane, and part from another.  I'm having trouble with Photobucket these days, but I posted an illustration on Hyperscale - search using the term 'RAF Buffalo Paint' but ignore the description of undersurface color, that's old info long superseded.

 

-Upper wing roundels are almost at the tips for SEA Buffalos.  They are not further inboard, as seen on ex-Belgian 339B's repainted in the UK.

 

- Underwing roundels come in two styles - initially an incorrect 1-2-3 ratio (think of French style roundels) and eventually the correct 1-3-5 ratio.  I think Mark has been working on identifying the changeover point so he should chime in on that.

 

-RAF 339E's did not have the little identification lights on the upper wing tips.  Just sand them off.  The secondary antenna wire goes to the right side, opposite the fixture for the USN F2A. 

 

-There's a complete Pilot's Manual including cockpit layout at http://www.warbirdforum.com/buffman.htm

 

-Hope this helps - Jim

 

2 hours ago, dancho said:

Well, youngsters, take heed. If you dare to question your betters, you're immature, lazy, ill-informed, probably delusional and needlessly beligerent. You'll be attacked by a halt-dozen different people on a forum that doesn't allow attacks, and they'll get away with it because they're clever enough to use "innuendo." Did I leave anything out? I asked for just one thing--evidence--and I've been mobbed by the masters of innuendo. There is a "logical fallacy" called the "appeal to authority." Of course, if one has a book published by Squadron or Osprey, that would be a legitimate source for Wikipedia, so there is an element of hypocrisy in a Wikipedia article on that subject.

 

Oh dear. Now I'm in for it.

 

this ones for the kids....

please note that Jim Maas comment on Mark's posts,  this is the same Jim Maas who wrote this

https://www.amazon.co.uk/F2A-Buffalo-Action-Aircraft-No/dp/0897471962

 

and is a noted researcher on the type, saying what  Mark says is as good answer  you will get.   Anyone who has spent time on forums has seen mark post on Buffalo's, IIRC his user name on Hyperscale is 'buffnut'

 

Dan mention  something about the OP, Fernando, who as been an useful and interesting contributor to at least Hyperscale and here for years, and made a decent summary of various opinions of RAF Buffalo's floating about various forums,  and then asked for clarification here, as it's maybe the best place to get answers.

 

Sure, there's plenty of hot air that gets blown about on forums, but it doesn't take long to work out who are the experts and whose not,  which is why you got a load of negative response from forum regulars who  are aware of Mark's interest and knowledge on the subject.

 

 

 

 

[dancho]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

 

As a moderator of this site I've seen a fair few trolls in my time, and people itching to start a row.  Regardless of your actual intentions, you are coming across as just that.  We can manage to have sensible conversations without scoring imaginary internet points on Britmodeller - not all the time, but most of it.  Please drop the attitude, and either participate in the discussion in a positive and productive way whilst being polite and respectful to your fellow members, or go get yourself an egg-nog and keep quiet.  Season of Goodwill, remember? 

 

I'm going to mind my manners from now on. I know when I'm beat.

[Magpie22]

5 hours ago, Fernando said:

On a different path, and to take people out of the colour conundrum: are there any schematic on the camera instalation on the two PR Buffaloes? In another thread a member ("Antoine") claimed to be working on a model of W.8136 (the one with one F.24 camera), and had linked some pics from an Aussie forum, but the server does not hold them anymore. Does someone have any information on these?

 

 

 

Fernando,

 

I don't have info on the RAF Singapore/Malaya camera mod on the Buff, however I have drawings of the mod done to several RAAF, (extended nose version) Buffs.

 

My sketch, based on RAAF drawings is attached in case it is of use.

 

 

Dancho, please note that this is my interpretation of those drawings and should not be read as being an exact reproduction of those drawings. Like Mark and Jim, I am merely a researcher. None of us claim to have the complete picture on Buffaloes, (or any other aircraft for that matter), we merely offer up the results of our efforts as a stating point for others.

 

Fernando, if you are interested in more detailed info, please pm me.

 

Cheers,

Magpie22

[LDSModeller]

3 hours ago, Fernando said:

Hi, Gentlemen,

 

On the matter of the "Equivalent Sky Type S- Gray": I have a pdf with a copy of a "Du Pont Catalog", where a "chip" for a colour so called and numbered 71-021 is present. It looks like a light grey with a slight greenish hue (if artificially saturated, it goes to the green side). Probably could be made up by mixing a Light Grey (like 36440) to MAP Sky. But no-one would have called it a "light blue". Besides, the "Sky Gray Conspiration" is considered debunked (though the aforementiond colour could easily pass for Sky Gray or Light gull Grey)

 

 

The question is: should the "Light Grey-greenish" (like 71-021) still be preferred to the "Light Blue-Gray" (like the latter colour) as a "Equivalent Sky Type S-Grey" version?

 

.

 

Fernando

 

EDIT: Geez, the threads I have been consulting appeared all together just above this post!

 

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:

 

Quote

Camouflage Colouring of British Aircraft, including American and Allied Types in use by British Air Forces

ii) Under-Surfaces.-The colouring of the under-surfaces is to be as follows :-

(a) Operational aircraft.-The under-surfaces of all operational aircraft are to be either black or duck-egg blue, at the discretion of commands, to meet operational requirements.  The following classes of aircraft are to be produced with duck-egg blue (Sky Type “S") under-surfaces:-        

            Day fighters                                 Blenheim bombers .............

 

 

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

Quote

II. MARKINGS OF BRITISH AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING AMERICAN AND ALLIED TYPES IF USED BY BRITISH AIR FORCES

(vii) Special markings.-Special markings may not be carried except-

(d)   by day fighters which carry an 18 in. band of duck-egg blue (Sky Type " S ") right round the fuselage, immediately forward of the tail plane, and have the airscrew spinner painted duck-egg blue (Sky Type " S ").

 

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

 

 

 

[Fernando]

Hi, Alan (LSDModeller),

 

Thank you for your answer, and for the pics (I rummaged through the photobucket content)

 

Both the "real eggs" and the colour "Duck Egg Blue" in Pinterest puzzle me, because they show a definite Light Blue (whether having or not the slightest of Green tinges); while the hue usually assigned to "Sky Type S" is a light green (also Sky BS 610; ANA 610 and FS34424), but not so saturated as we see in hobby paints. That's the colour we usually relate to undersurfaces of BoB fighters, FAA aircrafts and some others. So the "chip" I see in my pdf copy of "British Aviation colours of WWII" (when compared to the "Sky Grey" there is no similarity at all; nor to the "Sky Blue")

 

The colour I see in the pdf document for a Du Pont catalog labeled as "Sky Type S-Grey" numbered 71-021 is a desaturated version, in comparison (IMHO, that's why many modellers consider it a "grey"), but actually less than I would have thought. But neither is a "light blue".

 

I couldn't find a pictured of your finished model. What colour did you use? I am leaning to a hobby paint "Sky" mixed with some very light grey.

 

Fernando