Tropical Sea Scheme on the 'Beest?

[Ed Russell]

as has been observed before, available photographic evidence suggests 36 Sqn wore OE and 100 Sqn carried NK codes. I wonder where the modeller found the information for painting/marking his kit?

As promised I have tracked him down and have asked him - further information will follow as it becomes available. It's a very nice effort from the Contrail kit.

[Dave Fleming]

RA is known to be the pre-war code applied to 100 Squadron - Thomas/Flintham assign a positive id to it and also quote the serial combo, so presumably they have a photo to work from - however they don't mention it as a wartime code.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Dave Fleming

[mhaselden]

It's a very nice effort from the Contrail kit.

I entirely agree. I couldn't even come close. It's also a very useful contribution to this discussion.

Cheers,

Mark

[Super Aereo]

I still wonder: the Tropical Sea Scheme was a FAA experiment: what are the chances it might have been applied to RAF aircraft in the Far East while their UK-based counterparts on coastal duty were ordered to shed their silver wings for uppersurfaces in Dark Green/Dark Earth..?

[mhaselden]

I don't disagree. the paucity of photographic or other information (personal accounts, contemporary documents etc) means that we're simply bouncing around theories. I think most of us are struggling with the contrast between the upper surface camouflage colours which seems much more pronounced than one would expect for traditional Dark Earth/Dark Green. Indeed, the demarkation is much more strident than is visible on types operating in Singapore (eg the 27 Sqn Blenheims) that we know wore DE/DG. This leads us to questions about what scheme was applied. The Tropical Sea Scheme idea came from the SAM booklet on early-war Far East camouflage and markings but, other than citing Paul Lucas as one source, does not go into any detail or documentary proof as to why they opted for this scheme. Personally, it would be great if Mr Lucas or one of the other authors participated in this discussion so we could perhaps understand the logic that was applied, and maybe even see the sources, that led to the Trop Sea selection.

Edited March 23, 2011 by mhaselden

[Mentalguru]

Not the sort of thread I usually get involved in- but was searchng for something else today and came up with these pics and web page

I'm sure it's utterly irrelevant

link

[Super Aereo]

Nice picture though. Love the trim on the spats.

[Giorgio N]

Folks, not sure I can add much as my knowledge in terms of primary sources is almost non existant, but the pictures of those Vildebeests show a contrast that I've seen before, mainly a picture on a very old Aircraft Illustrated Extra (how old ? price is 3/6..) of a 60 Sqn Blenheim (L1545) in Madras in 1939.

Apart from the strange detail that this Blenheim seems to have 3 or 4 different colours, the plane shows a very marked contrast between what I expected to be the dark green and dark earth areas. As the roundels show the usual contrast, I believe this is not due to the lighting conditions only.

The same book has a picture ofL4911 of the same unit and this shows instead a lower contrast, more like what I'd expect from TLS.

[Seahawk]

..., mainly a picture on a very old Aircraft Illustrated Extra (how old ? price is 3/6..) of a 60 Sqn Blenheim (L1545) in Madras in 1939.

Could you say which issue please? TIA.

[Giorgio N]

Could you say which issue please? TIA.

Sure, it's number six. The main subject of the issue was the RAF in India vetwen 1919 and 1939. On the cover there's a Lysander

[Dave Fleming]

The picture of the aircraft in Celyon has been bugging me. How likely is that it's an aircraft originally from 36 or 100 Squadron after the War started? I've had a look at the Vildebeest section in Air Britain's 'The K File' and I can't see one case of an aircraft that has been with 36 or 100 after the start of the War ending up in Celyon - all lost in Singapore/Malaya/Hong Kong.

273 aircraft listed are:

K4156

K4159

K4169

K4161

All ex-36 Squadron reserve, delivered August/September 1939

It could be K4159, which is listed as hitting a tree, losing a hwheel on landing and tipping up at China Bay on 14/9/41.

What I think we can extrapolate is that only the pictures of the torpedo dropping aircraft tell us anything about the colours of the 36/100 Vildebeests in Singapore.

(Incidentaly, the book gives some more code combinations for aircraft, both the pre-war codes and the wartime ones)

BTW, to watching Kiwis - I did think about the colours of Short Singapores in this!!

Edited March 24, 2011 by Dave Fleming

[mhaselden]

What I think we can extrapolate is that only the pictures of the torpedo dropping aircraft tell us anything about the colours of the 36/100 Vildebeests in Singapore.

Dave,

Whilst I agree there is the potential that the Ceylon aircraft carried different markings, I don't think we can discount the possibility (perhaps probability) that they wore the same scheme as the 36 and 100 Sqn aircraft in Singapore. My rationale for saying this is:

1. Ceylon was still under Far East Command and hence subject to the same HQ directives.

2. The camouflage on the Ceylon nose-over pic has some similarities to the pics of OE-T and OE-R, most noticeably the wheel spats (plus the fuselage appears to be a reversal of the scheme worn by OE-T).

3. Were there facilities on Ceylon for repainting aircraft, particularly recovering and repainting fabric-covered types like the Vildebeest? The main aircraft depot in the Far East was 151 MU on Singapore, although there may have been facilities in India that were closer.

4. The aircraft were drawn from squadron reserves. That means they were still held on the books of the squadron. I therefore suspect they would wear the same markings as the rest of the unit.

Now, none of this is proof and there may be equally logical reasons why the Ceylon 'Beests wore different camouflage than their Singapore-based brethren but my money is on them wearing the same colours until a stronger reason than my list above comes to light that would prompt different markings. That said, the info on serial numbers was still interesting and of use.

Cheers,

Mark

Edited March 24, 2011 by mhaselden

[Dave Fleming]

Dave,

Whilst I agree there is the potential that the Ceylon aircraft carried different markings, I don't think we can discount the possibility (perhaps probability) that they wore the same scheme as the 36 and 100 Sqn aircraft in Singapore. My rationale for saying this is:

1. Ceylon was still under Far East Command and hence subject to the same HQ directives.

2. The camouflage on the Ceylon nose-over pic has some similarities to the pics of OE-T and OE-R, most noticeably the wheel spats (plus the fuselage appears to be a reversal of the scheme worn by OE-T).

3. Were there facilities on Ceylon for repainting aircraft, particularly recovering and repainting fabric-covered types like the Vildebeest? The main aircraft depot in the Far East was 151 MU on Singapore, although there may have been facilities in India that were closer.

4. The aircraft were drawn from squadron reserves. That means they were still held on the books of the squadron. I therefore suspect they would wear the same markings as the rest of the unit.

Now, none of this is proof and there may be equally logical reasons why the Ceylon 'Beests wore different camouflage than their Singapore-based brethren but my money is on them wearing the same colours until a stronger reason than my list above comes to light that would prompt different markings. That said, the info on serial numbers was still interesting and of use.

Cheers,

Mark

Points taken Mark - a couple more thoughts.

On reading the RNZAF page again, they note that the chap transferred to Ceylon in July 1941, which if accurate (and the AB dates accurate) makes K4159 likely to be the aircraft in question (Note I got the date wrong by typo - it should be 14/9/41 it tipped over). Interesting they mention 6 aircraft, as AB says 4 and I can only find trace of 4 in their lists. However, it's entirely possible more were transferred.

One thing I need to try and find - at what point was camouflage introduced for overseas aircraft? Initially, peacetime camouflage was for aircraft in home service only. (

The Singapore shots show an aircraft in what is probably the scheme from late 1939- April 1940 - red/white/blue roundels with no fin flash. The presence of the wartime codes and the known existence of a photo of a pre-war aircraft with red/blue roundels and pre-war codes tends to support that interpretation.

If we take the date of the crashed aircraft as being September 1941, then this is two years after this aircraft was delivered to Ceylon - what's the chances that a fabric covered aircraft in tropical climate aircraft hasn't been repainted in that time? Which brings me to my final point.

Do we think the aircraft shows signs of repainting - particularly on the upper starboard wing compared to the port?

Edit - quick thought - Is there anything in the Aeroplane Monthly series on RAF inter war Bombers on these aircraft?

Edited March 24, 2011 by Dave Fleming

[mhaselden]

Again, all valid points Dave. I think the slight tonal variation on the upper wing is due to dihedral rather than anything more complex...but I could be wrong.

[JohnMacG]

I'm just going to suggest something that occurred to me while looking at the wonderful pics of OE-T, namely IF these a/c were in TempLS, the uppersurfaces of the lower mainplanes AND the fuselage sides were lt green/lt earth - the contrast of which looks very like that on OE-T. (When I built my Contrail Vilebeest that's what I painted it in.) Undersurfaces? Who knows? A gut feeling would be something like Sky Blue; far more appropriate for local conditions than Sky, and, of course, the Blenheim fighters which we discusses recently had something very like Sky Blue painted underwings.

Any thoughts?

Also, to go back to the beginning; surely somewhere in the Air Ministry files for 1939 (-ish) there must be a signal telling Singapore Command to camo' their 'silver' aircraft. Has anyone found this? And does it say what colours were to be used? Or was the camo to be left to local decision/availability of paints in the local stores, etc.?

[Edgar]

In late 1939 a general (presumably) signal was sent out, signifying which Air Diagram (A.D.) was to be used for which type of aircraft, and there were 21 of them. Commands were told to apply for the relevant diagrams, and proceed accordingly; the signal also laid out which type (e.g. DTD 63A) of finish was to be applied on a particlular surface. So far, I haven't found any of the A.D.s.

Prior to that, painted transparencies seem to have been the normal way of communicating the design, and colours, to be used; I've found several, for the Scapa, Singapore, Sunderland, Roc, Stranraer, Skua, D.H.86, London, Lerwick, Rapide, for example, and the Sunderland is the only one with Extra Dark Sea Green. On one, at least, it says that it was cancelled, and replaced by a particlular A.D.

Edgar

[Dave Fleming]

Paul LUcas mentions several of the ADs by name and number in his 'Battle For Britain' book, and also mentions an undated document (Which he ascribes to 1937) of a 'Register of Aeroplane Camouflage Schemes' which relates the Air Diagram number to the relevant RAE colour scheme designation. This file is in the PRO/NA in one of the RAE files.

[Macfire]

These books below have colours schemes for the RNZAF Short Singapore's

NZPAF * RNZAF Aircraft Colour Schemes Vol. 1/3 By Warren Russell quotes EDSG/DSG/Sky (bluey colour) according to comments from other modellers

"The Golden Age of New Zealand Flying Boats" has chapters on the Short Singapore's colours also

If any of my Kiwi Modelling brethren have these, they may perhaps quote colours given?

Regards

Alan

Hey Alan,

I have both books at home so will check them out.

My reply will have to wait until Sunday (next day at work) as my home interweb is down at the moment.

[iang]

When I was researching Tropical Sea Schemes and trials of camouflage for my book on Camouflage and Markings of FAA aircraft I went through all the RAE files at TNA. At the time, I didn't pay much attention to material that related to RAF types, but I did copy quite a lot of it. I've just been back through these copies and my notes and, while they are incomplete, they do provide some material that may be relevant to this discussion. I haven't got Paul Lucas' book, so don't know if it simply replicates what he has already published.

The first mention of a distinct 'Singapore Scheme' appears to be in February 1936. This document is in AVIA 13/568. The uppersurface colours were of 4 greens. Notice this is distinct from what were to become the Mediterranean Tropical Sea Schemes based on blues and greens:

Trials had been carried out on Vildebeest Torpedo Bombers in early 1936. These are filed in AVIA 13/567, but I don't have a copy. During 1937 a number of further trials were carried out by RAF Stations testing various camouflage schemes. The results of these were summarised in an RAE document in January 1938. By this time the four green scheme had been rejected in favour of a tropical scheme based on blue and green. The scheme preferred was S.2.T., which was Dark Mediterranean Blue/ Extra Dark Sea Green/ Light Mediterranean Blue/Dark Sea Green. Here is the relevant page from this report filed in AVIA 13/571:

After the results of these trials, through 1938, most of the Air Ministry discussion concerns camouflaging aircraft in the event of War with Germany. This concentrated on the needs of home based aircraft, culminating in the production of a large number of camouflage diagrams, corresponding to aircraft type through late 1938 and early 1939. These are Air Diagrams AD1157 through AD1175 of March 1939. These are filed in AVIA 13/572. The shift in focus towards aircraft types, rather than area of operation, reflected the main purpose of these colouring diagrams. They appear to have been produced primarily to provide camouflage instruction for aircraft manufacturers.

As far as I am aware, however, during 1939, there is no memorandum or instruction extant in these files to overseas commands to adopt the scheme on their in service aircraft that had been tested and approved in 1937/8. Of course, this doesn't mean that local action of this sort was not taken by Overseas Commands.

HTH

IG

Edited March 24, 2011 by iang

[mhaselden]

Ian,

That's fascinating. Thank you for sharing. Of note to some earlier posts, the tropical scheme was deemed appropriate for both Singapore and Ceylon whereas the temperate scheme was better for Hong Kong.

Now to find out whether the tropical scheme was actually implemented.

Cheers,

Mark

[Super Aereo]

Thank you for sharing, Ian: it certainly adds to the puzzle...

[Dave Homewood]

Hi there,

I have just joined this forum, I'm Dave Homewood who posted those Vildebeest photos to my forum that you've all been so excited over. I have had the photos for almost 18 months but never had any idea that they might be of such historical interest. All Vildebeests interest me but I had never heard of the different paint schemes in Singapore, etc. So I am glad i posted them now as they have hopefully helped with your understanding of the history of these aircraft a bit.

I rang Don MacKenzie, whom I got the photos from, yesterday and asked on your behalf if he remembered what the colours were on these aircraft. His answer was, "I wouldn't have a clue, but I wouldn't have thought they were any different from any other aircraft." bearing in mind that Don flew 54 different types of aircraft in WWII it cannot really be expected that he remembers a specific paint scheme.

The day before yesterday I rang Ron Reid who flew Vildebeests on No. 36 Squaron from late 1941, and also the Albacores they picked up in 1942. He was on the Endau raid and saw a bit of action in the Albacore after that. His impression was the Vildebeests were overall light grey including underneath. They did not have the 36 Sqn logo on the tail when he got there, he says. he was adament they were not camouflaged. I don't know quite what to make of this, and I don't know what you'll all make of it, but I have interviewed Ron previously not too long ago and found him to have a very vivid memory for details. He only flew these two types operationally and spent the rest of the war a POW, so he doesn't have a lot of aircraft to get mixed up with.

I hope to visit Don this coming week to photograph his Flying Logbook, which will hopefully provide more detail of the aircraft serials he flew in Singapore and Ceylon, bot Vildebeests and Fairey Seals. If anyone has any questions you'd like me to put to him when I visit, please let me know asap.

[Dave Fleming]

Fascinating stuff Dave - the 'overall grey' sounds like the pre-war painted aluminium finish. POstulation - aircraft taken from storage?

[Test Graham]

I'll comment here that the pattern on top of the nosed-over Vildebeest does not match standard AM patterns - which the model understandably does. To me this suggest thats it was painted in advance of receipt of the ADs mentioned by Edgar. To my eye it looks to very close to being a mirror image of the S1E pattern applied to Sharks, as in Ian's FAA Camouflage book page 30, which suggests a common source as opposed to local invention.

I've received a letter from Paul Lucas, who is not able to take part in discussions on this thread. Some of the letter has been superseded by Ian Gazeley's publication of the details above, and much of it is a pre-war chronology of stages in the introduction of camouflage, specifically the Tropical SS. Specifically relevant is this:

(The Service Trial carried out by 100 TB Sqn during July and August 1937. 3 aircraft flown in formation one in standard silver finish, one in the existing Dark Med Blue, Dark Sea Green, Light Med Blue and Light Sea Green scheme and one in the new dark scheme using Extra Dark Sea Green, Dark Med Blue, Dark Sea Green and Light Med Blue scheme).

21 August 1937

Report from 100 Sqn at Seletar recommends the new pattern tropical scheme (i.e. Extra Dark Sea Green, Dark Sea Green, Dark Mediterranean Blue and Light Mediterranean Blue) for introduction to service.

25 August 1937

Report from RAF Seletar to HQ RAF Far East.

Recommends scheme S2T for introduction to service.

14 October 1937

Letter to the Air Ministry from the RAE stating that in the light of the reports from Singapore it appeared that S2T could now be standardised.

Note the existence of light and dark versions of the scheme, the light one coming first but the dark being preferred. So at least one (or two) aircraft did appear in the scheme(s)....ah, for the serials. Not with nice squadron codes, however.

Paul states that the trail goes cold (my words not his) at the outbreak of the war, and suggests that the choice of TropSS in the Bridgewater book was because the scheme appeared odd in photographs, and therefore not TLS.

[mhaselden]

Graham,

Thanks for sharing this info, and it's great to have input from Paul Lucas even if he can't join the discussions in person. This info, together with Ian's post, provide really useful background. The conclusion that Singapore Vildebeests wore the ST2 scheme is not without logic but it would be good to join up some dots if at all possible. For instance, do we know when 36 and 100 Sqns started camouflaging their aircraft? I wonder if anyone's heading to the PRO in the near future who could look up the 36 and 100 Sqn 540s to see if there are any details on when the aircraft started to be painted. We might also be able to build a list of serial numbers for each aircraft (assuming that hasn't already been done in the K-series Air Britain book previously quoted in this thread). Wish I could get there but it's something of a long commute from Virginia and I don't know when my next trip to Blighty will occur.

Cheers,

Mark

Edited March 27, 2011 by mhaselden