Where was Lemon Yellow used in the RAF?

[Nick Millman]

Ok thanks. 355 and 356 are both listed for MoD use in BS381 1996 and 355 was reportedly used for Yellowjacks Gnats but also note other comments in this thread re both those colours:-

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234938378-airfix-yellowjacks-gnat-decal-options/

 

FWIW RAF hazardous materials markings up to at least 2013 specify 356.

 

All this a long way from 1944 though! 

 

Nick

[Dave Fleming]

17 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

Ok thanks. 355 and 356 are both listed for MoD use in BS381 1996 and 355 was reportedly used for Yellowjacks Gnats but also note other comments in this thread re both those colours:-

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234938378-airfix-yellowjacks-gnat-decal-options/

 

FWIW RAF hazardous materials markings up to at least 2013 specify 356.

 

All this a long way from 1944 though! 

 

Nick

 

 

Looking up my references, I may be mistaken - it seems the colour used (On some aircraft at least) was BS381C 315 Grapefruit

[John Rixon]

Hello folks, I think this may be my first post on this forum, been lurking for quite a while, and in the middle of two 1/48 aircraft builds at the moment, after a prolonged mojo break! I come from an art and design background, lecturing at FE &HE levels on colour theory amongst other subjects (photography, digital image making and moving image). 

 I find it fascinating reading about colour and scale modelling, mostly as there are so many threads, delivered with such authority, about what colour something was painted, and how to replicate this colour. Firstly, even if (more on this later!) we had the exact pigment make-up of a specific colour from 60 odd years ago, it would be only a starting point in determining what to use to paint our model. Colour and surface finish are very much subject to scale, as much as physical detail is. Even if we had a paint that matches exactly, the original paint (and this can only be hypothetical, for countless reasons) it would still not look right at 1/35 per 1/48. The saturation would appear too high and the surface too thick. Surface finishes, such as gloss, satin, eggshell what have you are all affected by this phenomena, so we will always end up making a judgement call on how to modify this in order for it to look "right". This is before we even approach the subject of pigment quality, provenance and different binders and solvents. To be pedantic (!) the only way we could truthfully know what colour that Spifire's nose really was, would be to have acces to a photograph, taken at the time it was in service, with a Kodak grey card in place (to pinpoint exactly the right colour) and then kept in total darkness for the last 60 years - and that would still have to take into account the change in photographic sophistication over the years!  No, the best we can manage is an impression, and I don't mean this in any derogatory way at all, fine-art masters have known this for centuries! 

 There are countless beautiful models on this forum, I continue to be staggered at the skills of so many folks on this and other forums,  and the colour choices people make, usually informed by research, and underpinned by intuition, are as good as it can ever be, and this is something to celebrate, in my opinion. There are simply too many variable parameters standing in the way of trying to use "science" to select the correct colour - bearing in mind also, that the human brain cannot retain a colour in memory, I suggest that we rely on the judgment and intuition that I alluded to before! 

  I write this as a point of discussion, not as a creed - personally I believe it frees us up from an unachievable goal, and, of course, stimulates more discussion and debate. I hope you'll forgive me for going on a bit!

[Seahawk]

20 minutes ago, John Rixon said:

 To be pedantic (!) the only way we could truthfully know what colour that Spifire's nose really was, would be to have acces to a photograph, taken at the time it was in service, with a Kodak grey card in place (to pinpoint exactly the right colour) and then kept in total darkness for the last 60 years - and that would still have to take into account the change in photographic sophistication over the years! 

Or you could, with or without use of a time machine, have a man hold colour charts up against the original aircraft and give you his considered conclusions.  And even then people would say they know better: see post 12 in this thread:

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234917903-gram-slam-lancaster/&tab=comments#comment-1028959

 

But we digress: apologies to OP.

[John Rixon]

Printed colour charts are also of limited use, being printed onto white paper, using inks and a modern 4 colour printing process. They can only be of any use as a rough guide, IF you are feling the need to make it "right". Online colour charts are all but useless, low res jpegs taken from a printed chart and viewed on a monitor that is most likely uncalibrated, don't get me started on them!  The only decent colour charts are the hand painted ones, such as Vallejo's excellent one. However, that Lancaster (in the thread to allude to) wasn't painted in Vallejo model air, therefore colour anomalies will come into play. I'm really not saying I know better, just that it makes Fermat's last theorem look simple, and that, at the end of the day, what is more important is that the model looks right. The only basic premise that I used to give students, when making scale models was "tone it down" - a 1/72 model of a London bus, painted with the same paint that the bus was painted in will look too bright.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

To be honest i second Mr.Rixon in the fact there are members that are quite sure they are 100% correct in colors or other accuracy issues. It has happened where members get quite rude if you don’t follow there train of thought. Some might say im like that however i try not to be. Now that being said. I’m sure this will Ruffle feathers and Step on toes. In my opinion and my thoughts after 30+ yrs of modeling. Painting anything to do with scale models, and i should point this out. In reality it really boils down to the good old fashioned Mark One 👁ball. If it looks correct its correct.

    I truly understand the whole argument for scale effect, i personally don't follow the practice as to me it isnt worth the trouble. There are those of you who believe in that. I say good for you. Just don't put someone down if they don't agree with you. Then again if i build a model i care more if it looks correct to the eye, not down to whether its exact. This includes how many millimeters off a panel line or wing are, and how accurate the rivet counts are. I fully respect everyones choices, but again not everyone follows that rule. 

     Honestly i was once that way. I was absolutely determined everything had to be 110% accurate. Eventually that caused me to get burned out on modeling. The overall result was i left modelling and lost 10 years of happiness and enjoyment in a hobby i loved since i was a child. I thank my Wife ... yes “SWMBO” for getting me back into modelling. Much to her sadness now as ive fully gotten the modeling bug again. I will only build to my personal standards. I don't care to ever get back into that restrictiveness that caused me to lose my happiness. I fully understand and respect your (everyone’s) personal choices. I say how you all choose to build your models is correct. I ask you to respect others if they choose differently from you. Im sorry if this all seems very preachy, but i thought it should be said. 

 

Dennis

[Dave Fleming]

I'm a firm believer in knowing what should be there, then interpreting it your own way. In a lot of cases, I'm simply fascinated by the colour and markings used, and it has little to do with actual modelling

[MilneBay]

One problem for us modelers is that we are all getting old. As we age our various components tend to deteriorate especially our eyes. There is no guarantee that how I perceive a colour will be the same as someone else perceives that same colour, and that is not even bringing the various types of colour blindness suffered by people into the equation. So the only accurate start is to mix paint by replicating the original pigmentation, carrier etc. specs of the original, and even then that can run aground on the shoals of something being painted with a colour that did not quite match the official spec. but was accepted anyway. All that is obvious - I wonder if the Lemon Yellow requirement was just shorthand for an instruction to mix the colour yourself to the best idea you as a modeler have of what Lemon Yellow looks like.

[Ed Russell]

This may have been Lemon Yellow (Post 10) but Loening rather than RAF Lemon Yellow but it probably wasn't.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234949653-fairchild-f24-in-australian-service-finished/

 

I think there is a lot of over-analysis and setting up of straw men in colour discussions. Most people (including me) are happy to get something that is "pretty right', "about right" or "near" the colour of the real thing. This does not mean a sloppy or shoddy approach - it's a recognition of the approximations enunciated so laboriously in posts above. Having looked at plenty of real aircraft from close up and from a distance approximating the view of a model I am happy I can reproduce the effect correctly.

[John Rixon]

11 hours ago, MilneBay said:

 There is no guarantee that how I perceive a colour will be the same as someone else perceives that same colour, and that is not even bringing the various types of colour blindness suffered by people into the equation.

This is so true, and ever will be, how can we possibly know for certain that we all see the same colour? The best we can manage is to describe it in words!

 

11 hours ago, MilneBay said:

One problem for us modelers is that we are all getting old. As we age our various components tend to deteriorate especially our eyes.

Whilst this is true to the extent of how sharp our focus is, I'm not entirely convinced that our ability to discern hue and saturation is - barring colour blindness, which may have not been diagnosed. Having been a practising artist and art lecturer for 38 years, I certainly don't feel that there has been any degradation in this area - how I wish I could say the same about my knees, hearing, and vision focus!

Edited September 24, 2017 by John Rixon

[Nick Millman]

We don't all see the same colour. Which negates the proposition that an ability to discern hue and saturation is not affected by age - even if that were true, which it isn't!

 

People of all ages score differently in colour acuity tests due to differences in the sensitivity of the cones in their eyes to wavelengths and illumination. But age related macular degeneration also causes yellowing in the lens of the eye which affects the perception of colour. All of this can be subtle enough that without testing the person would never know that they have a colour vision deficiency and simply assume the colour they see is as others see it. Whilst that might not affect the basic perception of primaries - red, blue, yellow, etc., - it is relevant to modelling as it will affect the perception of more subtle green-brown, blue-green and grey-green type colour transitions.  

 

For most modellers awareness of what "looks right" on a historic model is driven by derivation - illustrative and photographic imagery, even other peoples models and to a significant extent by hobby paints, although there is frequent debate about whether some of those are "right" or not. There is a prevalent enthusiasm for colour photographs as a resource for "accurate" colour, whilst official colour standards and applied paints are often conflated. As a human condition we like to believe what we see. For those with first hand experience of the real aircraft it is a little different. Whilst it is true that colour cannot be reliably remembered the jolt of memory that a model "looks right" to someone who spent years around the real aircraft is absolutely valid. And in terms of reliability there is a difference in the consideration of documentation made at the time specifically to record colours and the memory of veterans asked about colours long afterwards.    

 

The idea of an intuitive "it looks right" is interesting, because whilst true to a certain extent it is difficult to pin down how this actually comes about. There is the possibility that what "looks right" to Peter might not look right to Paul. Then Paul has a choice. He can articulate that observation, which often leads to debate, heated or otherwise, or keep quiet from a sense of politeness. In reality there are far more possible outcomes than that binary one, which will sometimes involve offline discussion, belief groups and personality, cutting across media and form. Model shows are a thriving hotbed for the dissemination and acceptance of the one true colour on this or that aeroplane.

 

Modelling as an interpretative art form should relax us, but doesn't always. The selection of colour is an informed choice - the "informed" bit being open to variation, from following kit or decal sheet instructions to wading through a multi-paged research work. But the choice of a Dark Green, say, for a wartime RAF aeroplane model, and the scale or weathering techniques employed to represent it, all perfectly valid, will not alter the fact that there existed a Ministry of Aircraft paint colour standard for that colour, defined and measurable, with an inherent variance (within the standard) which is usually negligible in terms of human colour perception. In modern colour standards, BS, FS, RAL, etc., measurement data is provided, precise or approximate, to communicate and verify colours beyond a painted chip. If these things didn't matter, or were perceived not to matter, then hobby paint ranges would simply offer generic "Dark Greens" and there would be no market for the increasing ranges of "authentic" and specific paint colours now available.  

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

[JackG]

odd where this thread has headed.  All I was looking for was something official, such as a directive from the Air Ministry, that specified where exactly Lemon was used in the RAF during WW2.  Kind of putting the cart in front the horse discussing colour theory at this point - interesting reads though.

 

regards,

Jack

[John Rixon]

5 minutes ago, JackG said:

odd where this thread has headed.  All I was looking for was something official, such as a directive from the Air Ministry, that specified where exactly Lemon was used in the RAF during WW2.  Kind of putting the cart in front the horse discussing colour theory at this point - interesting reads though.

 

regards,

Jack

Sorry! We ought to take this elsewhere, maybe the mods can move it?

[Nick Millman]

14 minutes ago, JackG said:

All I was looking for was something official, such as a directive from the Air Ministry, that specified where exactly Lemon was used in the RAF during WW2.  

regards,

Jack

FWIW I've not encountered any such - unsurprising as the RAF did not use the British Standards in WW2 for aircraft colours and there is documentation to that effect. All the wartime MAP/RAF standards were officially considered to be 'provisional' and of limited application with the understanding that if they were found generally applicable then in due course they would be passed to the BSI for adoption as British Standards. That is exactly what happened, but quite some time after the war. None of the wartime RAF stores listings include anything other than Yellow although there is late reference to a separate yellow primer for anti-corrosive application. 

 

The 1930 BS 381 lists 55 Lemon as a Ministry of Transport colour for road signs. No doubt it would have been found as such within RAF camps and aerodromes. 

 

Nick

[John Rixon]

On 24/09/2017 at 3:07 PM, Nick Millman said:

We don't all see the same colour. Which negates the proposition that an ability to discern hue and saturation is not affected by age - even if that were true, which it isn't!

 

People of all ages score differently in colour acuity tests due to differences in the sensitivity of the cones in their eyes to wavelengths and illumination. But age related macular degeneration also causes yellowing in the lens of the eye which affects the perception of colour. All of this can be subtle enough that without testing the person would never know that they have a colour vision deficiency and simply assume the colour they see is as others see it. Whilst that might not affect the basic perception of primaries - red, blue, yellow, etc., - it is relevant to modelling as it will affect the perception of more subtle green-brown, blue-green and grey-green type colour transitions.  

 

For most modellers awareness of what "looks right" on a historic model is driven by derivation - illustrative and photographic imagery, even other peoples models and to a significant extent by hobby paints, although there is frequent debate about whether some of those are "right" or not. There is a prevalent enthusiasm for colour photographs as a resource for "accurate" colour, whilst official colour standards and applied paints are often conflated. As a human condition we like to believe what we see. For those with first hand experience of the real aircraft it is a little different. Whilst it is true that colour cannot be reliably remembered the jolt of memory that a model "looks right" to someone who spent years around the real aircraft is absolutely valid. And in terms of reliability there is a difference in the consideration of documentation made at the time specifically to record colours and the memory of veterans asked about colours long afterwards.    

 

The idea of an intuitive "it looks right" is interesting, because whilst true to a certain extent it is difficult to pin down how this actually comes about. There is the possibility that what "looks right" to Peter might not look right to Paul. Then Paul has a choice. He can articulate that observation, which often leads to debate, heated or otherwise, or keep quiet from a sense of politeness. In reality there are far more possible outcomes than that binary one, which will sometimes involve offline discussion, belief groups and personality, cutting across media and form. Model shows are a thriving hotbed for the dissemination and acceptance of the one true colour on this or that aeroplane.

 

Modelling as an interpretative art form should relax us, but doesn't always. The selection of colour is an informed choice - the "informed" bit being open to variation, from following kit or decal sheet instructions to wading through a multi-paged research work. But the choice of a Dark Green, say, for a wartime RAF aeroplane model, and the scale or weathering techniques employed to represent it, all perfectly valid, will not alter the fact that there existed a Ministry of Aircraft paint colour standard for that colour, defined and measurable, with an inherent variance (within the standard) which is usually negligible in terms of human colour perception. In modern colour standards, BS, FS, RAL, etc., measurement data is provided, precise or approximate, to communicate and verify colours beyond a painted chip. If these things didn't matter, or were perceived not to matter, then hobby paint ranges would simply offer generic "Dark Greens" and there would be no market for the increasing ranges of "authentic" and specific paint colours now available.  

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

Thanks for this Nick, some very salient points. I'd be fascinated to read your blog, in the light of other posts of yours I've read, but it appears to be invite only? John

[Nick Millman]

10 hours ago, John Rixon said:

Thanks for this Nick, some very salient points. I'd be fascinated to read your blog, in the light of other posts of yours I've read, but it appears to be invite only? John

Hello John, if you'd like to send me a pm with your email address I'll send you an invitation.

 

Regards

Nick

[JPuente54]

Nick has an excellent point about the availability of 55 Lemon on/at an RAF base. After all, a good size one will have some roads/streets for automobile/truck traffic; various traffic signs would be needed to help control the vehicles. Signs have to be painted, too! It is not impossible that it would be used by a squadron as a marking paint(such as the nose of a Spit., Hurri. etc.) for training purposes. Sometimes, they would have to use what is on hand.