Jump to content

AVG Flying Tigers


Prop Duster

Recommended Posts

OK

I realize this topic has no doubt, been discussed and argued over in the past.

But I'm pleading a "special exemption". We had to pack up all the reference books to prepare for a bit of renovation and I cant find anything about British-AVG camo schemes.

So in your kind hearts and scholarly brains, could you point a struggling Yank to an internet reference for the camo patterns ?

ESPECIALLY the top of the wings ?

Thanks in advance

:pilot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK

I realize this topic has no doubt, been discussed and argued over in the past.

But I'm pleading a "special exemption". We had to pack up all the reference books to prepare for a bit of renovation and I cant find anything about British-AVG camo schemes.

So in your kind hearts and scholarly brains, could you point a struggling Yank to an internet reference for the camo patterns ?

ESPECIALLY the top of the wings ?

Thanks in advance

:pilot:

Dana Bell covered this in his monograph on aircraft bought by the BPC, but I can't think of its title and can't find my copy either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dana Bell covered this in his monograph on aircraft bought by the BPC, but I can't think of its title and can't find my copy either.

Thanks Ley, for your help. I remember Dana Bell's article- now that you remind me. If I have it it too is "put in a safe place" .

sigh :unsure: .

Ah well, dont let the glue stick to your fingers and may your clear never fog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems a pretty safe assumption that it was to the standard British pattern for small single-engine aircraft, which has been published in many places. Just look at Spitfires, Hurricanes, Harvards etc to find examples.

Thanks Graham

good call about the other types, I will look for a scorce to use

Thanks again for your help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Tullis did a monograph for Eagle Editions on markings and camouflage of the AVG. Also, Carl Molsworth (IIRC) did a monograph for osprey.

Now there has always been one thing that seemed odd to me. That is the mismatched patterns. It seems that some P-40Bs were assembled from parts from different airframes, with the result being that wing and fuselage pattern did not match. So if all aircraft were painted in the same pattern (on Curttiss allegedly used masks) why the difference in pattern among P-40s sent to the AVG. I don't believe it had to do with the A/B scheme.

One possibility is that early on, perhaps mask were not used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Tullis did a monograph for Eagle Editions on markings and camouflage of the AVG. Also, Carl Molsworth (IIRC) did a monograph for osprey.

Now there has always been one thing that seemed odd to me. That is the mismatched patterns. It seems that some P-40Bs were assembled from parts from different airframes, with the result being that wing and fuselage pattern did not match. So if all aircraft were painted in the same pattern (on Curttiss allegedly used masks) why the difference in pattern among P-40s sent to the AVG. I don't believe it had to do with the A/B scheme.

One possibility is that early on, perhaps mask were not used.

Are we talking about the P40's? I have an article somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you prefer an online source you could refer to Rogério "Rato" Marczak's AVG P-40 model build which shows the pattern clearly, although I have not compared his camo pattern to the Tullis/Clements data:-

http://www.ratomodeling.com/wip/tigerdown/

The reason for the mismatched camouflage is probably quite prosaic. The wings were painted separately from the fuselage using mats suspended at measured parts of the airframe (see pic). The aircraft were then delivered crated as separate components. There would have been a margin of error in the use of the masks, the probability that at some point during the attrition of working up (see colour pic of Mingaladon boneyard) wings from one airframe were married up to the fuselage of another, and/or the subsequent re-touching of aircraft damaged during assembly. In the original colour print of the boneyard the Curtiss equivalent Sky colour on the undersurfaces of the P-40's is apparent. It is not light grey.

curtissps.jpg

avg01.jpg

Edited by Nick Millman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was definitely the RAF "B" pattern which was used. Tom Tullis in his Eagle Files 04 insists, though, that the undersurfaces were light grey in colour (he suggests FS *4673 Aircraft Gray), as - he writes - confirmed to him by ex-AVG members. He thought that the blue-green shift was due to photographic reproduction and indeed many of the color photos in his book seem to show light grey undersurfaces.

I have not read the Osprey book on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The light grey theory is well entrenched. Originally it was explained as being the result of confusion by American manufacturers about the RAF colour Sky, causing them to match Sky Grey instead. This caught on - especially in US modelling circles where it quickly became gospel. The original hypothesis, as discussed by Dana Bell and Terrill Clements, was more equivocal than is sometimes suggested. However, the US factory paint scheme drawings for many RAF aircraft, including the P-40, do not use the term "Sky" but instead use the term "Duck Egg Blue" (in some cases they specify the paint 71-021 - see below). It is more difficult to envisage how "Duck Egg Blue" could be mistaken for "Sky Grey". More recently it has been advanced that extant contract records show that Curtiss procured paint from suppliers other than Du Pont and that some of this paint was described as "gray". I would not dispute this information but the documentary evidence for it and more importantly the actual colour values of the alternatively procured paint have not been revealed yet. AFAIK the paint descriptions have not been correlated to production serials and timescales or to actual paint samples.

Tom Tullis ('Tigers Over China - The Aircraft of the AVG', Eagle Editions Ltd., 2001):-

"While the RAF used a greenish-blue color called "Sky Type S" for their fighters, there wasn't any DuPont color that closely matched it."

This is not correct. The DuPont 71 Series colour card prepared for the MAP (see below - now replaced with a better scan courtesy of John Melson) and specifically intended for use on aircraft being manufactured for the RAF includes a paint chip for 71-021 Sky Type S Grey (or Gray - the spelling appears both ways in various documents) which was the intended match for RAF Sky. This should rule out any doubt about the intended appearance of 71-021. The actual paint swatch for 71-021, from a sample plate provided to the DTD, is a very pale blue-green. The measured Munsell value for this paint is 10GY 8/1 and the closest FS 595b value to that is 25622 @ 1.50 (DE2000 difference criteria of 2.0 or less = a close match - so it is very close). Compare this colour to the undersurface colour seen in the boneyard photograph above and in other AVG colour images. It could be described as "Duck Egg Blue" and in fact is very close in appearance to the long standing Humbrol paint colour 23 which is also called Duck Egg Blue. It is not entirely clear at what point in time the Tomahawks, originally intended for the RAF, were diverted to the Chinese instead. It is possible therefore that expedient painting was completed once Curtiss knew this batch of aircraft were not going through the AM acceptance procedures, but evidence of the colours applied to RAF aircraft with adjacent serials (see below) militates against that. The factory paint on some Tomahawks tested at the A&AEE was close enough to the RAF colour to be described as "duck egg green" and "sky" by contemporary observers (Early Tomahawks may have had an undersurface colour closer in appearance to AM Sky Blue but more on this later).

Tom Tullis again:-

"A cool gray color was used instead . . . "

Was it? Why? Since it is generally accepted that the Du Pont equivalents for Dark Green and Dark Earth, 71-013 and 71-009/035 were used on the uppersurfaces of the AVG Tomahawks, why would 71-021 not be used on the undersurfaces? And notwithstanding the paint contracts information why would a light grey be used when the British wanted Sky? So far the explanation given for this has been expediency/cost cutting by a manufacturer who was not too bothered about British requirements.

". . . and this was likely F.S.16473 Aircraft Gray, which has a very slight blue-green hue to it."

Was it? Where is the evidence for that?

"Some color film and photos seem to show a much bluer color on some aircraft."

You betcha. But, in any case colour film cannot be trusted for the reliable matching of colours, especially so in a way that is contrary to other evidence.

"Whether this is a legitimate variation, or simply the effects of time deteriorating the film over the last fifty years is unknown. During the course of my interviews, most crew members clearly recall a neutral or slightly cool gray as having been used."

Some people who I have shown the 71-021 colour to have indeed described it as "light blue grey" - but it isn't really (as the Munsell value shows: GY = Green Yellow). It is, however, a paler and slightly greyer colour than AM Sky. It is also a cooler colour.

Information on the H81 aircraft that went to the RAF in the Middle East reveal that they were delivered painted "brown and green" with a "greyish green" colour underneath. This is mentioned in Squadron ORB's (Operational Record Books). Some of the serial numbers recorded were to either side of some of those sent to Burma, so it seems probable that they were painted similarly at the factory.

In August 2001 AVG camouflage and markings expert Terrill Clements made the following comment at the Flying Tigers AVG forum:-

"The factory paint job was brown and green on the top, and the bottoms were light gray with a greenish/blue cast. All the evidence I have seen indicates that this was indeed the colour scheme of the Tomahawks supplied to the AVG. (There were likely a few slight one-off exceptions as Curtiss put together the shipments with the components at hand). As you indicate, the planes were in most cases from the same production lines (as the RAF examples). I won't go into the tedious details, but the colors used were Curtiss' attempt to match the colors specified for RAF Day Fighters in 1940-41, but NOT exact matches."

Note that Mr Clements describes the matched colours as "not exact" rather than as completely different colours. His subsequent books differ from his original description in reporting the colour only as "light gray", although one of them IIRC does mention the slightly blueish cast. The 71-021 paint swatch is slightly cooler and more blue in appearance than the painted chip in the 71 series colour card, which is closer to the original AM Sky. However both colours are similar in appearance to the undersurface colours of P-40's seen in colour photographs, including those of the AVG. Because the perception of colour is subjective, everyone may have a different idea of what this colour is and how to best describe it. It is also worth mentioning the fade characteristics of the Sky paint, especially the sub-contracted examples, as explored and discussed by artist Ron Belling.

The significance and usage of the Du Pont 71 series colour card was reported by Dana Bell:-

"The first document I found was a 12 March 1942 memo from the British Air Commission to the (US) Defence Aid Organisation requesting that all future B-17Es be delivered in Extra Dark Sea Gray and Dark Slate Gray over White (the temperate ASW scheme). What makes the document important is its explanation of the BAC's mechanism for communicating color standards at that time. All color names are followed by a Dupont color number. The letter states, 'I have quoted the Dupont colour numbers since these are in a booklet which the Defence Aid Organisation has and further it may accelerate the ordering of paints. The British Air Commission has no special preference for Dupont, but it gives easy reference.' This is the first indication I've seen showing how the BAC told Americans to match the Air Ministry colors."

Incidentally Du Pont 71-021 Sky Type S Grey was also specified by Bell - and shown in their factory paint shop drawings - as the required undersurface paint for the Airacobras manufactured for the RAF.

DuPont71-021.jpg

DUPONT.jpg

Edited by Nick Millman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the very interesting precisations. The Du Pont No. 71-021 looks indded a grey with a greenish-blue (albeit rather faint) cast, at least on the screen I am using at the moment and with all the limitations that electronic reproduction and computer screens have. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all, for you fine input and suggestions.

:thumbsup: A big Thank You. :goodjob:



For the information and references. They will be added to my library for future works

To Nick Millman, your addition of color samples is very helpful and welcome, outstanding.

I feel confident now, to plunge on and paint the little monster.

So, as you were, I'll be in the studio mixing paint……

..now where IS that can opener?

:pilot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...