The Spitfire Prototype Definitive Thread

[Mark]

Hi all, I did start an earlier thread entitled The Definitive Spitfire Thread' here. This was in order to get as much correct information about the various Spitfire marks and how best to model them as accurately as possible with the available kits and conversions. It was intended that those who are in the know teach us lesser mortals about the correct dimensions, what wing bumps and where, four or five spoke wheels, which radiators etc. etc.

However, it was suggest that I start an individual thread on each mark and let the individual threads take their course and I agree. All the threads will be entitled ' The Spitfire **** Definitive Thread' and whilst that may seem a touch arrogant, I want to state that this is not me telling the world what should and shouldn't be regarding Spitfires and their models, it is hopefully going to encourage those that really do know what they are talking about to come forward!

So without further ado, let's start the ball rolling and discuss Supermarine Type 300, K5054.

There is plenty of information out there and I think that as a modeller the best way to model the prototype Spitfire would be to use the Tamiya Mk.1 and the Paragon conversion. Am I correct?

As far as the individual aircraft is concerned, I know that she developed over the months prior to the first production aircraft, so by using the Paragon set are we restricted to any particular period in her life and if so, which colour scheme would she have worn?

OK, I've now opened the can of worms; colour! On this site here, the colour that has been applied to the Tangmere facsimile is stated as original:

By May 1992 the project was nearing completion, the only thing left was to finish it off in the original colour scheme, it was critical to the whole project that the facsimile had the correct colour paint. By chance it transpired that Gordon Mitchell had a desktop model of K5054 which had been presented to his Father in 1936 and which had been painted using the original paint that had been applied to the prototype.

So does that clear up that issue? I know that this was just one scheme that she wore, but using the Paragon set, would it be appropriate to paint her in that colour and if so, does anyone have a paint reference or mix? I don't think that I've seen any kits made up of her as she would have looked on her first flight (a mixture of green primer and bare metal if I am correct) but I do know that there are photos of her in that guise dating as late as May 1936, two months after the first flight. So when was she painted 'Cerulean Blue'?

Here are the references that I have at the moment on the Internet;

http://www.k5054.com/

http://www.rjmitchell-spitfire.co.uk/spitf...asp?sectionID=3

http://www.ratomodeling.com/finished/k5054...le_spitfire.pdf

Edited November 28, 2010 by Busdriver

[ollieholmes]

I think the colour debate could go on forever. As far as i am aware the Paragon conversion is the only one so its a case of either use that or scratch build.

[Mark]

Cheers Ollie. So, what have I found out today?

K5054 flew from Eastleigh Airport in a natural metal finish on 5th March 1936, 'Mutt' Summers being the pilot. The cowling is natural metal, the other metal panels seem to have been anodised and show a distinct green / yellow tint, whilst the control surfaces are silver dope.

She wore that scheme until at least May 1936, before being painted by Rolls Royce in the 'Cerulean' Blue scheme that attracts much debate as to the exact shade. At around that time her rudder was changed to the production type with smaller control horn.

I did find a completed model of K5054 in her 'first flight' finish:

Visit My Website

[ben_m]

I don't know a lot about the Spitfire prototype, but I believe a big difference between the first flight configuration and the blue-grey finished aircraft was the wings were changed- the first flight wings were more of a patchwork. Re-scribing the wings would be more of a pain than the other modifications with the Paragon bits. Luckily I model in 1/72, and CMR have made two versions- a Type 300 (i.e. the green/bare metal first flight configuration), and the Prototype (blue-grey with new wings). Compare the two:

http://www.cmrmodels.co.uk/review/spitfire...4_m-davies.html

Edit: having looked at the link, the difference in the wings may just have been because the wings were filled before the blue-grey paint (I seem to remember that the plaster of Paris used for this cracked, and they had to keep touching up the paint).

Edited November 28, 2010 by ben_m

[ollieholmes]

When i get around to doing mine i want to do her as she was on her first flight to avoid the debate.

[Mark]

Ollie, that's what I'm planning too. It also seems more appropriate to do K5054 as she was when first flown, yet most Modellers struggle with the Cerulean Blue issue as well as, in some cases, knowingly using the wrong rudder??

[Edgar]

There are a few things, that I've found, which you might consider relevant. The wings were planked overlapping front-to-back; "clinker-built" is how Gordon Mitchell described it, and one set of wings remained that way for some time, since there's a very good photo of K5054, after it was camouflaged, and the lines can be faintly seen through the paint ("Spitfire, The Illustrated Biography," by Jonathon Glancey pp 56 & 57.) Those wings had no separate wingtips.

There is no guarantee that K5054 had fabric control surfaces; except for the "new" rudder, there isn't even a hint of ribbing visible, and the specification laid down that it had to made, entirely, of metal.

Also, in the first-flight photos the rudder is the same darkish shade as the rest of the fuselage, which hints at it being green, which was not, ever, a fabric primer, and an artist, who I now know to have been Mitchell's nephew, told me that K5054 was painted "a mucky green."

K5054 had no transport joint forward of the tail section, nor did it have the starboard access hatch (an RAF test pilot recommended that one should be added.)

Judging from (rather small) photos, K5054's elevator trim tab horns were under the elevators, not above.

I believe that the first-flight wings were removed, soon after, to have the guns fitted, and another gunless set fitted; 6-3-36 gun muzzle holes can be seen in the wing l/e (someone has claimed that they're black paint, but I can't accept that); after its first repaint the holes are gone. "They were filled." So why put them there in the first place, and why, if they were to disappear immediately after the first flight, paint them, either?

Gordon Mitchell said that the first paint was cerulean blue (note the lack of capitals, which infers a description, rather than a name.) Much is made of it being "A Rolls-Royce car colour," but, at that time, R-R didn't build complete cars; they did the engine + chassis, while coach-builders made the bodies. I have learnt that R-R did have their own "house" colour, which was used on all of the company vans and lorries, and was matched to the blue of the Mediterranean sky, and, to me, that seems to be a more likely candidate. If there's 1930s/40s R-R company vehicle, preserved in its original colour, it might give the answer. We constantly hear how the colour must have been a light blue, because it looks almost white in photographs; however any photographer will tell you that, in a b/w photo, blue sky, however dark, will appear as white, and has to have a filter on the lens before it will darken.

Edgar

[penfold]

I don't think that I've seen any kits made up of her as she would have looked on her first flight (a mixture of green primer and bare metal if I am correct) but I do know that there are photos of her in that guise dating as late as May 1936, two months after the first flight. So when was she painted 'Cerulean Blue'?

By Mid-June 1936; possibly for this public event ????

Pathe newsreel site

[gingerbob]

K5054 went to Farnborough on 6 April, and came back on the 9th. She then went into the shops for a number of mods, including the rudder change (a stern-light was added, too) AND the repaint. The report listing the work done was dated 7 May, and the next flight was on the 11th.

Edgar, why can you not accept black paint for where the guns would be? That was done on the first Mustang prototype, and is easy enough to imagine as a quick marketing ploy. As far as I know the ailerons were fabric covered, but I haven't gone digging to verify that thought. I don't remember seeing anything to indicate that the wing was changed, but I'm not rejecting the notion either. I have seen comments (Ian Huntley?) concerning two different paint jobs (prior to the camo), but so far recall no clear-cut evidence of that in the records.

As for precisely what colour it was, I'm very interested in the search for an answer, but I think I'm content in the meantime to pick something that seems about right and is pleasing to the eye on the model. In fact, a few years back a local shop had a bargain table with a bunch of paints, and I chose two or three that were light blue/greys that "might be suitable for the prototype Spitfire"- how's that for scientific analysis!

bob

[Edgar]

Edgar, why can you not accept black paint for where the guns would be? That was done on the first Mustang prototype, and is easy enough to imagine as a quick marketing ploy.

1/. It was a first test-flight, not a sales pitch, otherwise the place would have been swarming with press and brass-hats.

2/. It seems very odd not to bother with painting the rest of the aircraft (it's possible to see, on the wing l/e, where the old-style steam radiators were apparently removed,) yet waste paint putting on 7 black blobs.

As for the (possible) wing change, on the first flight there were two pitots in the port l/e, while, three days later, they were gone, leaving no holes behind. Also, in the starboard wing, there's a small hole, apparently where the no.1 gun would go, but it doesn't look large enough to be a gun muzzle, and there's not another hole (or dollop of black paint) to be seen.

Edgar

[VH-USB]

Gordon Mitchell said that the first paint was cerulean blue (note the lack of capitals, which infers a description, rather than a name.) Much is made of it being "A Rolls-Royce car colour," but, at that time, R-R didn't build complete cars; they did the engine + chassis, while coach-builders made the bodies. I have learnt that R-R did have their own "house" colour, which was used on all of the company vans and lorries, and was matched to the blue of the Mediterranean sky, and, to me, that seems to be a more likely candidate. If there's 1930s/40s R-R company vehicle, preserved in its original colour, it might give the answer.

I have in my collection five old actual paint samples of a 'Rolls-Royce Blue'.

These five color chips are from three different aircraft paint manufacturers... PPG, Berry Bros., and Titanine (UK).

The color chips span the years from the late 1920s through the late 1930s and all these five color samples are the same shade, all appear the same.

So I assume this 'Rolls-Royce Blue' wasn't a color particular to any certain paint manufacturer but a standard color such as 'International Orange' or 'Travel Air Blue'.

This 'Rolls-Royce Blue' is a medium gray-blue and could be considered to fall within the 'Cerulean Blue' color range.

Once I return from holiday after January 3 I can provide FS and BS matches to my old 'Rolls-Royce Blue' aircraft color samples if anyone is interested.

Tim

[Nick Millman]

I have in my collection five old actual paint samples of a 'Rolls-Royce Blue'.

These five color chips are from three different aircraft paint manufacturers... PPG, Berry Bros., and Titanine (UK).

The color chips span the years from the late 1920s through the late 1930s and all these five color samples are the same shade, all appear the same.

So I assume this 'Rolls-Royce Blue' wasn't a color particular to any certain paint manufacturer but a standard color such as 'International Orange' or 'Travel Air Blue'.

This 'Rolls-Royce Blue' is a medium gray-blue and could be considered to fall within the 'Cerulean Blue' color range.

Once I return from holiday after January 3 I can provide FS and BS matches to my old 'Rolls-Royce Blue' aircraft color samples if anyone is interested.

Tim

Yes please. I would be very interested.

Thanks.

Nick

[VH-USB]

Yes please. I would be very interested.

Thanks.

Nick

Hi Nick,

Will do on Monday, January 3.

Cheers,

Tim

[Edgar]

Could you send a copy to me, as well, please.

Edgar

[John Aero]

I'm wondering if the old Rolls Royce house colour associated with the Spit prototype might just be the colour on the ROTOL badge, the RO part of the names is RR and I remember the signs at Hucknall aerodrome (RR's test site)had the same blue background. Purely speculative I know but stranger things happen.

John

[VH-USB]

Could you send a copy to me, as well, please.

Edgar

I will post the FS and BS matches here, after New Years.

Tim

[Spitfire31]

[snip] any photographer will tell you that, in a b/w photo, blue sky, however dark, will appear as white, and has to have a filter on the lens before it will darken.

Edgar

Well, kind of…

Being a professional photographer I'd say that yes, early b/w film of the original blue sensitive kind and later orthochromatic film (sensitive mainly to blue and green) will depict blue sky as very dark on the negative and hence very light or white on a print.

However, panchromatic film (virtually all present-day, all-purpose b/w film is panchromatic) is sensitive to blue, green and red light and will render most colours in grey tones more or less corresponding to the real life visual impression. Through the use of a yellow filter (complementary colour of blue) a blue sky will get less exposure, yielding a thinner negative and so darker tones of for instance blue sky.

Panchromatic (from gk pan, all and chroma, colour) was in fact already available early in the 20th century but it was more expensive than the orthochromatic stock and also need special filters.

Therefore, it's hard to say with any certainty if a specific photo from the 'thirties or 'forties was taken with orthochromatic or panchromatic film stock without some references, such as a blue sky in the background. Which makes everything even more difficult…

Sorry for clouding the issue further! ;-)

Merry Xmas!

Joachim

[gingerbob]

Edgar in earlier post: I believe that the first-flight wings were removed, soon after, to have the guns fitted, and another gunless set fitted; 6-3-36 gun muzzle holes can be seen in the wing l/e (someone has claimed that they're black paint, but I can't accept that); after its first repaint the holes are gone. "They were filled." So why put them there in the first place, and why, if they were to disappear immediately after the first flight, paint them, either?

As for the (possible) wing change, on the first flight there were two pitots in the port l/e, while, three days later, they were gone, leaving no holes behind. Also, in the starboard wing, there's a small hole, apparently where the no.1 gun would go, but it doesn't look large enough to be a gun muzzle, and there's not another hole (or dollop of black paint) to be seen.

Edgar

Hi Edgar,

Thanks for the comments- I know I asked you once before about the wing change theory, but I confess I never made a careful study at the time. As for black paint marking the gun locations, I don't believe that's what we're seeing. I agree with you (I think) that at rollout the holes are open (except the outer port side, which is occupied by the test pitot boom.) Spit the History p.29, Robertson p.17, and Supermarine (Archive Photographs series) p.62 have photos of the rollout configuration from forward (the other views don't show the leading edge, unfortunately). Are there other books or mags with maybe better reproduction? (Seems to me that Aeroplane had a "Datafile" on the prototype, or was it the Mk.I in general- I'll have to go find it. - I did- Mar 06 (Issue 395)- not any help. It does have a small version of the shot by Gordon cited below (wrongly dated 3 August, an obvious reversal of day/month))

Two shots taken 8 March are in "R J Mitchell: Schooldays to Spitfire" p.186. The one taken by Gordon is a bit fuzzy, but the one of Gordon taken by RJ is sharp. I think I can just make out circles where the gun ports should be on the starboard wing, plus that odd spot where the inner gun would be (note also that the main gear doors are now fitted, but not the secondary flap that was meant to close off the wheel well. The additional large test boom appears to be gone, as you say, but the smaller leading edge pitot is still there, and it remained on the prototype.)

In Spitfire: A Documentary History p.64 (Spit the Hist p.51 has a similar photo) you can see the plugs used to fill the leading edge holes on a test aircraft. They pretty well disappear with a bit of distance from the camera or lack of sharpness. I think that this is what was done after rollout.

I find it unlikely that a second wing was built before the prototype had even flown. I also don't see the point of changing the wing immediately after the first flight or two- the important thing would be proving the airframe and working out any minor issues. Also, I think that the guns weren't fitted (actually installed) until December, though I'm not completely sure that this was the first fitting of them.

bob

p.s. I commented earlier on the sternlight being added with the new rudder. It actually says the glass was fitted, and I see that the original rudder had the fairing for the light, but maybe the light itself hadn't been installed yet.

[Edited to correct some statements and add a reference or two.]

Edited December 23, 2010 by gingerbob

[gingerbob]

Spots or holes?

I found another shot of the rollout configuration, in Spitfire at War 3 p.8 [same shot also in Wings of Fame Vol.9 article). This time it looks more like painted spots, because it doesn't look very convincingly like holes (with depth) and there's just a hint of the same gleam along the leading edge on some of them- maybe!

bob

...and another in "Supermarine Spitfire 40th Anniversary" booklet (you've all got that, right?) which is still not definitive.

Edited December 27, 2010 by gingerbob

[Mark]

Well after all the speculation and comment regarding K5054, here's how I'm getting on with my version of how I think she might have looked on her first flight:

[Don McIntyre]

Well after all the speculation and comment regarding K5054, here's how I'm getting on with my version of how I think she might have looked on her first flight:

Now that looks interesting…

[gingerbob]

here's how I'm getting on with my version of how I think she might have looked on her first flight

Better check the torque on the wing attach bolts, I think something's come adrift!

(Looks very... unusual! Now, is there any proof that a Tilly was present at that time?)

bob

[gingerbob]

Back to the "are they holes, or are they black spots?" dilemma (the gun positions at rollout), I just got the FlyPast "Spitfire Special" and on p.12/13 they have the head-on shot full-screen. They sure look like black spots to me- you can make out a "sheen" (not Charlie) on each one that is right in line with the light-line along the leading edge.

bob

[Edgar]

Strangely enough I got my copy yesterday, and came to the same conclusion; at least I didn't bet any money on it.

Edgar

[Troy Smith]

IN regard to this, I was looking at various Spitfire prototype threads posted up by Work In Progress and reading this noticed that Tim/VH-USB had been on the site recently, so PM to ask about the matches for the colours chips mentioned below, from page 1 of this thread

Edgar, on Dec 17 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

Gordon Mitchell said that the first paint was cerulean blue (note the lack of capitals, which infers a description, rather than a name.) Much is made of it being "A Rolls-Royce car colour," but, at that time, R-R didn't build complete cars; they did the engine + chassis, while coach-builders made the bodies. I have learnt that R-R did have their own "house" colour, which was used on all of the company vans and lorries, and was matched to the blue of the Mediterranean sky, and, to me, that seems to be a more likely candidate. If there's 1930s/40s R-R company vehicle, preserved in its original colour, it might give the answer.

I have in my collection five old actual paint samples of a 'Rolls-Royce Blue'.
These five color chips are from three different aircraft paint manufacturers... PPG, Berry Bros., and Titanine (UK).
The color chips span the years from the late 1920s through the late 1930s and all these five color samples are the same shade, all appear the same.
So I assume this 'Rolls-Royce Blue' wasn't a color particular to any certain paint manufacturer but a standard color such as 'International Orange' or 'Travel Air Blue'.
This 'Rolls-Royce Blue' is a medium gray-blue and could be considered to fall within the 'Cerulean Blue' color range.
Once I return from holiday after January 3 I can provide FS and BS matches to my old 'Rolls-Royce Blue' aircraft color samples if anyone is interested.

Tim

He today PM me this, so, here's Tim's answer.

I have dug out my old aircraft dope paint charts which contained samples of the 'Rolls-Royce Blue' and have matched them to the British Standards, the American FS595C, as well as the German RAL chips.

First, about my old color charts which I matched to. I found four (4) old charts with actual paint samples from the US aircraft paint manufacturer Berry Bros, these are their Berryloid pigmented dope range. And I found two (2) old charts with actual paint samples from the paint manufacturer Titanine.

All six (6) color charts are USA manufacture and date from the very late 1920s through the early to mid 1930s. All the charts contain actual paint samples, not printed, and all are in excellent to mint condition. In addition the color chips on these old charts are in mint condition as the charts/brochures they are attached to are of the folding type, hence the color chips have not been exposed to light, dirt, etc.

All the actual paint samples of the 'Rolls-Royce Blue' on these six (6) separate color charts are identical in color, no difference can be seen between them. This surprised me a bit as I was expecting perhaps a very slight difference in color between the Berryloid and the Titanine colors as they were produced by two different manufacturers. I guess quality standards must have been very tight even with this two aircraft paint companies. Not too surprising given that they were the two largest aircraft paint manufacturers in the world at that time.

Now, on to the color matches.



RAL 6004 Blaugrun/Blue Green - a near perfect match, for all intents a perfect match

FS 24108 - too light, needs about 30% medium blue added for a close match

BS 6073 Bottle Green - too light, needs about 20% medium blue added for a close match. Something between BS 6073 and BS 6068 Marble Green (which is much too dark and rather muddy) would be somewhere in the ballpark.



The RAL and BS color fan decks I matched to I purchased from this source in the UK:

http://www.e-paint.co.uk

Remember that I know of no proof that the 'Rolls-Royce Blue' color samples that appears on my old aircraft dope charts has anything officially to do with R-R. It may take a fair bit of research to determine what, if any, connect this aircraft dope color has to do with R-R.

I hope this helps everyone and I look forward to your comments and further discussions. And if there are any other old aircraft colors you are needing information on feel free to ask me as I have a rather large collection of old aircraft paint charts from a fair number of paint manufacturers. Unfortunately, nearly all my collection is USA charts with only two not from the USA, a 1941 Titanine Canada color sample chart and a 1935 Titanine UK color chart, both being mainly civil colors.



Cheers,

Tim

Thanks for doing this Tim.

cheers

Troy