Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hi,

Does anyone know the colour of the cockpit interior - the instructions call for it to be mainly silver. Looking at the RAF Pilots notes, I originally thought they showed silver, now I am not so sure.

Does anyone know if when the windows below the cockpit was filled - if this meant just over painting or actually putting a plate over it etc (believe it was originally in place so the pilot could ensure the bomb had released).

Thanks

Posted (edited)

If you look in the the Work in progress section I have posted some pictures of my Special hobby build (so far)

Linky thing

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...p;hl=RNZAF+339E

There has been a lot of discussion over time as to whether they were painted and if so what colour.

I painted mine Bronze Green as the photos I have seen show it to be painted (my version was eighth production aircraft (NF-O))

To help you out also

A link to a discussion about cockpit colours etc

http://warbirdsforum.yuku.com/topic/981/t/...ial-Hobby1.html

Also a link to the pilots notes which can help you out, has some great photos of the cockpit

http://www.warbirdforum.com/buffman.htm

The cockpit colour is one thing that really is an "unknown", so modellers have painted their's British Grey-green

but as you will read from the above discussion, grey-green was not a feature in RAF Buffalos.

My best advice would be to decide what aircraft you will build and go from there. Some later addition aircraft

may have had silver laquer cockpits due to Brewsters inept ability to keep up with production, but Brewster expert, Jim Maas I have

read, has also stated that Brewster F2A-2 cockpits were not all silver laquer, as they had a Bronze Green/Dark green

paint below the cockpit sill to help with glare problems.

Edit: Forgot Ventral Window, This was clear, not painted over(except framing). Two holes at rear are for ventilation,

in cockpit under pilots position (aft) there was a louvre to aid air movement (see pilots notes) see my build.

If you need any additional info on the reasearch I have done please feel free to ask here or PM me

Regards

Alan

Edited by LDSModeller
Posted

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the response and links - they have been a HUGE help. I am sure as I progress with the build I will have more questions.

Kind regards

Posted

Looking at those discussion links I see that the dreaded and ubiquitous Sky Grey is now being promoted as the undersurface colour for the RAF Buffalo too. Won't be long before all WWII RAF aircraft have Sky Grey undersurfaces.

Posted (edited)
Looking at those discussion links I see that the dreaded and ubiquitous Sky Grey is now being promoted as the undersurface colour for the RAF Buffalo too. Won't be long before all WWII RAF aircraft have Sky Grey undersurfaces

In all fairness, before you pass judgement on those listed discussions, both Mark Haselden and Jim Mass are the premier

experts in the field of the RAF Brewster Buffalo. Both have done tremendous amounts of research, interviewed former RAF Buffalo pilots and the agreed concensus is that the undersides were a Sky grey.

Edited by LDSModeller
Posted (edited)

I seriously doubt that they were Sky Grey but I'd like to see the documented evidence for that - not just a hypothesis, how the colour appears in a colour photograph or what the pilots remember about it. Extant factory drawings referencing paint stock numbers or other documented evidence for what actual paint went on RAF Buffalo bellies would be acceptable. From my reading of the discussion the subject has still not been resolved. And an "agreed consensus" is not a dictat, even if there were one (an agreed consensus that is). See also Gary Byk's analysis of same.

We are not talking here about what modellers want the colour to be, and then creating the necessary hypothesis (US manufacturers confused about the colour Sky, got mixed up with Sky Grey, colour looks more grey in colour photos, veterans recall grey, blah, blah, blah :sleep_1: ) to reach that conclusion, but about what the factual documented evidence tells us. Where is that? Which paint company did Brewster procure paint from? What were the stock numbers and names for the paint? What do the factory drawings reference for colour?

The colour was more likely to have been one of the US substitutes for Sky Type S or similar, which could very quickly appear like a "grey" (and would probably look more grey to people used to the real colour Sky), especially after exposure to tropical UV light, or the US substitute for Sky Blue, a very bright pale blue similar to that used on US export aircraft for France and found on the undersurfaces of the Martlet and Mohawk.

Most of the US factory drawings at the time refer to "Duck Egg Blue", which was an accepted alternative description for Sky. It is difficult to see how this colour might be interpreted as Sky Grey. But I keep an open mind and will readily accept any real evidence. :deadhorse:

Edited by Nick Millman
Posted (edited)

Looking at that "agreed consensus" again:

Fl Lt Bingham-Wallis

" Our a/c in Rangoon were painted pale blue under-colour. Of the original 30 a/c there, approximately 20 were painted half black and half blue beneath, ie on the mainplane. Shortly after they were assembled and painted (we painted the black) the Air Ministry orders were changed and the remaining a/c were left as delivered from the manufacturers, pale blue underneath."

"The band of blue foward of the tailplane would be a shade lighter than the sky blue"

Doesn't sound like Sky Grey to me. I have never heard of Sky Grey being described as "pale blue".

Mark Haseldon:

:hmmm:

"The main problem is we just DON'T KNOW what colours were used on RAF Buffalos - and that includes the upper surface "Dark Earth" and "Dark Green". Based on study of available photos, it seems that the Brewster-applied upper camo was darker than the standard RAF paint - images of aircraft that had been reassigned between sqns, and hence had unit code letters overpainted, show a lighter tone on the overpainted section than on the base colour.

As for the undersides, there is even more confusion. If we assume that the fuselage band was RAF Sky (by 1941, stocks of that colour had largely been standardised), then it is obvious that the undersides were darker in tone. Geoff Thomas suggested that the darker tone was a stronger, darker blue shade. However, comparison of colour images of other US-supplied aircraft shows that almost all were painted in a pale gray colour underneath - Sky Gray perhaps? Certainly the AVG P-40s, Hudsons and P-39s that were supplied around the same time as the Buffalos used this Sky Gray colour.

I have a photo showing a 67 Sqn Buffalo parked next to an AVG P-40 and the undersides appear to be identical (although, granted, it's impossible to confirm that it was the same colour - merely the response on mono film was identical). Based on the above info, I would suggest that Sky Gray is the most likely colour for RAF Buffalos. I would be very surprised if the PRU aircraft undersides were repainted in another colour, although since there are no known photos of these aircraft we cannot be absolutely certain.

In short, you can paint your Buffalo bottoms (and tops for that matter) almost any reasonable colour and get away with it. However, the above covers some thoughts on the matter."

Doesn't sound like an "agreed consensus" for Sky Grey to me. And btw Sky and Sky Grey have exactly the same diffuse reflectivity so would be hard to distinguish in b/w photographs.

Anyway, why let facts get in the way of another modelling myth? Let's take someone's hypothesis and communicate it everywhere we can as a historical certainty, without qualifications or caveats. Soon everybody is painting Sky Grey and repeating the same mantra. Won't be long before we are told Spitfires and Hurricanes were really Sky Grey underneath.

Edited by Nick Millman
Posted (edited)

For any interested check out the link below. Deals primarily with P 40's in RAAF but you get the gist. The author cites Dana Bell, so should carry some

authority.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/history/meteor/cresswell.shtml

Also check out this link, follow down to Blues and see last one Sky Grey. Make note of colour distinction

http://rnzaf.hobbyvista.com/rnzaf_paints.html

Make of it what you will, my Buffalo will be painted Sky Grey

As far as I am concerned this thread was about cockpit colours which was answered reasonably well enough

and if any one one wants to contend the Sky Grey issue make up a new thread

Edited by LDSModeller
Posted (edited)

Yes, I thought this was more about what you want to paint your Buffalo! But p-er-lease, just because you have already decided to paint your Buffalo Sky Grey don't pretend that the historical evidence supports that. It doesn't.

Even Jim Maas in an article on the Buffalo in 1973 referred to "greyish Sky" on the undersurfaces of the RAF Buffalo. That is a good description for the US Sky substitutes which were a very pale blue-green.

NZ Sky Grey has nothing to do with it! The colour of the P-40 undersurfaces are just as contentious. And in the RAAF P-40 article Dana Bell is misquoted. Modellers who write "research" articles often do this, turning hypothesis into fact. Check out his original 'US Export Colors of WWII' to see what he actually wrote.

Edited by Nick Millman
Posted

Hi . Nick and all,

Dana Bell states that the Dupont Colour Code for Duck egg Blue as 71-021 The same colour code as Sky Grey used on Airacobras. Mind you he also states that ALL Hellcat MKI and II were delivered in Temperate Sea Scheme which was not the Case . So I treat this Monograph with some caution

Cheers

Terry

Posted (edited)
Hi . Nick and all,

Dana Bell states that the Dupont Colour Code for Duck egg Blue as 71-021 The same colour code as Sky Grey used on Airacobras. Mind you he also states that ALL Hellcat MKI and II were delivered in Temperate Sea Scheme which was not the Case . So I treat this Monograph with some caution

Cheers

Terry

Hi Terry, yes, that is Du Pont Sky Type S-grey and is nothing like AM Sky Grey! The Bell factory drawings state 'Sky Grey' but a note on the same drawings clarifies that 'Sky Grey' is actually Du Pont 71-021 Sky Type S-Grey (note designation). I have an original swatch of 71-021 and a wartime Du Pont colour card also showing it. It is a very pale blue-green - like a bright greyish Sky - nothing at all like AM Sky Grey. Also where Du Pont 71-021 is specified in factory drawings it is often referred to as Duck Egg Blue and that is what it is like.

Tamiya must be laughing all the way to the bank with all those modellers buying gallons of their Sky Grey paint to put on 1/32nd P-40's, Airacobras and Buffalos.

Edited by Nick Millman
Posted
Hi . Nick and all,

Dana Bell states that the Dupont Colour Code for Duck egg Blue as 71-021 The same colour code as Sky Grey used on Airacobras. Mind you he also states that ALL Hellcat MKI and II were delivered in Temperate Sea Scheme which was not the Case . So I treat this Monograph with some caution

Cheers

Terry

Terry,

Grumman used to run a historical office out of the LI plant. It was run by user friendly people, who would go to great lengths to help. According to them ( Grumman), Hellcats were delivered in either the TSS ( all Mk.I, and some Mk.II) using paints which were very close to the MAP shades, however the Sky could have a distict blueish tone to it ( poorly mixed? poor batch?), or in overall Glossy Sea Blue ( only Hellcat II). Thats it. And the GSB Hellcats had a flat ( or matt) lacquer applied to the top of th cowl area for use as an anti-glare panel.

Now for Buffalos, the problem with Brewster they were evidently more frugal than Curtiss ( who were legendarily frugal). So there in all likely hood SEVERAL shades used, depending on paint source. Unfortunatly no records seem to have survived ( shame as I am trying to research a\n article on FAA Corsairs).

Bruce

Posted (edited)
Terry,

Grumman used to run a historical office out of the LI plant. It was run by user friendly people, who would go to great lengths to help. According to them ( Grumman), Hellcats were delivered in either the TSS ( all Mk.I, and some Mk.II) using paints which were very close to the MAP shades, however the Sky could have a distict blueish tone to it ( poorly mixed? poor batch?), or in overall Glossy Sea Blue ( only Hellcat II). Thats it. And the GSB Hellcats had a flat ( or matt) lacquer applied to the top of th cowl area for use as an anti-glare panel.

Now for Buffalos, the problem with Brewster they were evidently more frugal than Curtiss ( who were legendarily frugal). So there in all likely hood SEVERAL shades used, depending on paint source. Unfortunatly no records seem to have survived ( shame as I am trying to research a\n article on FAA Corsairs).

Bruce

Thankyou Bruce ,

I am aware of the Hellcat Colours as I have a facsimile of Grumman Drawing NO 303 . However the point I was making was the Statement in the Monograph states ALL Hellcat MKI & MKII were delivered in TSS. Whilst this is true of the Hellcat MKI , it is certainly not the case with ALL MKII as is known . Perhaps a word has been omitted from the caption which should read ALL MKI and SOME MKII were delivered in TSS

Brewster I suspect with its business practices sharper than Curtiss , probably used several paint suppliers -the cheaper the better

Cheers

Terry

Edited by Terry McGrady
Posted

Just be careful, Nic is not as healthy as he use to be. Do not use Dana Bell's name more than once in a post :innocent:

Some quotes and pix from my files:

Author: Jim Maasa

Email: [email protected]

Subject: British Buffaloes

Date: Mon Aug 23 17:13:20 2004

IP: 205.188.117.8

Message:

Unfortunately, we do not have conclusive evidence on the interior color of British Buffaloes (the 170 ordered by the RAF, as opposed to the 39 'inheritied' from the Belgian order). The cockpit interior is most likely something close to British interior green - several FS #'s are quoted for this color but 34128 would work well. Gear wells are most likely in the undersurface color. Again, we don't have original documentation on what the undersurface color was, but current speculation is between Sky Grey (36463) and Sky Blue (35622). You can see on-line examples of these colors at http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/colorcharts/s...orcharts_uk.htm

Repeated flipping of the official buffalo nickle shows Sky Grey coming up six times out of ten.

British Buffaloes (including 488 Sdn machines) had reflector gunsights, and photos of the cockpit including the gunsight at at http://www.warbirdforum.com/buffman.htm

You asked about the squadron codes ('NF') for 488 Sdn. Research by WKBS Mark Haselden indicates that, unlike the other squadrons, 488 used Sky (as in 'Sky Type S') for its codes. A good indication is the fact that 488 Sdn. aircraft codes never appear over the Sky fuselage band, where they do for the other units.

Hope this helps.

* British Buffalo Mk I's — Rune Haugen, Mon Aug 23 11:14

o British Buffaloes — Jim Maasa, 1093299200

___-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buffalo Answers

November 24 2007 at 10:19 PM Jim Maas WKBS (Login jimmaas)

HyperScale Forums

from IP address 64.12.117.18

Response to Calling Jim Maas - Buffalo Questions

>1. Do you still favor Interior Grey Green as a plausible cockpit color for RAF Buffalo's?

Yes. I know there are other WKBS's who differ, but here's my reasoning:

- the Brits specified an array of changes on the Model 339E's; they wanted eveything to MAP standard (ranging from seat change to a switch from 12v to 24v electrical system).

- the British seemed pretty anal about the colors and markings used. They had Brewster use both 'A' and 'B' camouflage patterns, and when the error in underwing roundel ratio was discovered (Brewster initially used a 1-2-3 ratio), had Brewster change to the correct 1-3-5 ratio.

- the photos of actual Brit Buff interiors don't show the glint of silver lacquer, and don't seem dark enough for bronze green/dull dark green, the other two interior colors we know Brewster used.

Therefore, it is consistent that the interior color would be MAP Interior Green.

2. With regard to 488 Squadron RNZAF, Code letters "NF"; particularly on Noel Sharp's W8138, "NF O", as printed on the Tamiya kit decal sheet, are in Medium Sea Grey. Are you still of the mind that these may have been painted in RAF Sky instead?

Yes. Mark Haselden, WKBS, pointed out that unlike any other RAF squadron, 488 codes never overlap the Sky band, and also appear lighter than other squadron codes. Tally Ho used to make RAF Code letter masks (as ProMask, stock # 48 015 for the 24" thin style) but they appear to be out of production, even Modelimex in Czech lists them as out of stock. So it's either a Sky lettering sheet and match the spinner/band to the decal, or make your own masks (fortunately, the N and F are pretty simple).

Hope that helps.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: Jim Maas

Email: [email protected]

Subject: NF-N

Date: Tue Sep 28 16:46:36 2004

IP: 64.12.116.14

Message:

Actually, you need Sky codes, not Medium Sea Grey. Although the other Buffalo squadrons in Southeast Asia used MSG for their codes, 488 ('NF') apparently used Sky - which is why you never see 488 codes painted across the Sky fuselage band.

* Need custom decals - any makers ut there? — Rune Haugen, Tue Sep 28 14:10

o NF-N — Jim Maas, 1096407996

=---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Mass on Interior

Thu Feb 10, 2005 07:24

67.101.134.61

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:11:15 -0700

Jim Maas has replied (with title "Buffalo interiors"):

No, the Buffalo was not an exception.

Aluminum Lacquer for all USN cockpit interiors until the F2A-3, which used ….. (from the eminent Mr. Bell's remarks at Chicago, I'll presume this means Bronze Green). For the 'silver' cockpits, both USN and Navy aircraft had antiglare black (or maybe Bronze Green?) on the upper part of the cockpit walls back to the third rib from the front - about where the pilot's elbows would have been. The instrument panel and coaming, of course, were antiglare black.

Undercarriage wells, legs, etc. were also aluminum lacquer until the F2A-3, when they were painted Light Gray, the undersurface color (presumably the same was done with the F2A-1's and -2's repainted in overall Light Gray).

The Finnish and Dutch 339C/D aircraft would match the F2A-1/2 coloring cited above. The long nose Dutch/Australian 339-23's would probably match the F2A-3 cockpit colors, but still originally have aluminum lacquer wheel wells/landing gear legs. Gary Byk maintains the undersurface was repainted RAAF Sky Blue in Australian service and that sounds logical to me. The gear well/legs probably were sprayed the same color.

The British cockpit and gear colors are an unknown, but I suspect that British Interior Green, or something close, would be right. The gear legs in factory shots look like they match the undersurface color (light grey? Sky? Duck Egg Blue?) but photos from Singapore show a darker color.

Hope this helps.

Jim Maas WKBS

F2ABuffaloassembly.jpg

O-1182461374-K3EiK726.jpg

Posted

Now don't be mischievous, Steven, this is Britmodeller not USmodeller or Hyper Squeal. And it is bad form to make such a comment about the very personal subject of someone's health of which you know nothing. :elephant:

I don't have any problem with Dana Bell. He is a gentleman. His US Export Colors of WWII is essential reading and I treasure my copy. However I do have a problem when he is misquoted.

As for the above:

"but current speculation is between Sky Grey (36463) and Sky Blue (35622)."

Note that word speculation.

But, hey, why let the facts as to what Du Pont 71-021 Sky Type S Grey and the US export Duck Egg Blue colours really looked like get in the way of some good ol' speculation? We even have Brewster using any old paint because of their dodgy business practice . . .

:clap2:

Posted (edited)

Excuse me Nic, but your poor health was a subject on Hyperscale a while back, it was a matter of public discussion. Ok, poor attempt at humor based on your posts above. I didn't think being Britmodeler that humor was not allowed.

Until some one comes up with a uncontested, museum quality color image of the underside, or a perfect condition airframe, it is all speculation as you say. There is a big difference between a color chip in hand and what was done on the shop floor. Even paint manufacturers had trouble matching the USAAC color plates. So as it is speculation, as you say, and as it is open to debate, then one can have differing opinions, and paint one's model in accordance with a reasoned opinion.

As for Dana, yes a good researcher, but while he corrected his previous opinion on the underside color of the P-40, he has made no public comment on the Sky Gray issue. So modelers and those interested in aircraft color have the option of either accepting or rejecting any opinion out there.

As to the business practice issues, yes US aircraft manufacturers cut corners and went off on their own. And as to the Duck Egg Blue being the equal to Sky Type S Grey, I truly wonder how much verbal confusion arose during the period. We know that Grumman went off and applied a pretty good match for Sky, while other manufacturers did not.

Translation between English spoken in the UK and in American can cause some confusion(bonnet-hood, boot-trunk; in the USA one wears a bonnet on one's head and a boot on one's foot). Even today, there is discussion among British modelers about Eau di Nile, Duck Egg Green, Duck Egg Blue, camotint and Sky and the relationship of all these color names. Even FAA references cause color confusion, I remember reading somewhere that the FAA Temperate Scheme was referred to as a "blue scheme" by pilots. In some bright light the EDSG, does look distinctly blue, but the DSG also looks quite green (so why not call it a green scheme?).

In conclusion, perhaps there is no speculation about a color card in your possession, and you can verify the existence of the card and the color on that card. But, in the real world there is speculation, including yours. As I noted at the beginning, we have no way of determining the truth of the matter. But that does not mean we should stop debating the issue.

Edited by Steven Eisenman
Posted

(Well it shouldn't have been.)

Your reply is very good in highlighting one of the problems. Modellers generally prefer speculation to fact. Thus with the existence of a paint swatch and colour card (tangible evidence) some still prefer to speculate that something else may have been painted underneath US export aircraft for the RAF. Well it may have been - or may not have been. Nothing wrong with a hypothesis - except when it is misrepresented as something else.

Of course there were batch variations, mixing variables, anomalies, etc. But beyond that are the characteristics of the colour, both as specified by the manufacturer (Duck Egg Blue largely) and as required by the customer (Sky). It seems that a whole bunch of circumstantial and factual evidence is being disregarded in preference to a hypothesis (Sky Grey), the basis for which is much less sound. But, hey, that seems to be the current approach to many things, not just colour research.

Instead of focussing on what we know as a probability, it is much more interesting to go off speculatively on possibilities. We see that approach on the TV news every night. The more it is narrowed down the more the gainsayers chip in with the variations, variables, anomalies, possibilities and if, buts and maybes. Look at the appetite for conspiracy theories. The fantastic is more interesting than the mundane.

There is no problem with modellers exercising personal choice when it comes to colour but there is a problem when they dress it up as 'research', as 'consensus' or wittingly or unwittingly mislead other modellers by suggesting that somebody else's research is definitive when it isn't. A plethora of models of US export types in RAF schemes are getting Sky Grey bellies. The evidence for that is at best weak. It is an unlikely possibility rather than a likely probability.

Posted

This may be a silly question but has any surviving Belgium, Dutch or RAF pilot been asked about the colour of the interior and the underside?

Regards

Posted
This may be a silly question but has any surviving Belgium, Dutch or RAF pilot been asked about the colour of the interior and the underside?

Regards

Yes, see post above where Bingham-Wallis recalls pale blue. There are others too, some remembering grey. It doesn't help much beyond giving a clue because the individual perception of colour is always subjective. Sky tended to fade towards grey and the US export Sky always looked more greyish anyway where it wasn't the pale blue.

Posted

One of the most undermining factors to the Sky Grey theory is the fact that in the production of early types for the RAF the US Manufacturers were matching to 'Duck Egg Blue' rather than Sky. The Sky Grey theory relies on a supposed and hypothetical* confusion over the names Sky and Sky Grey. The idea that this resulted in the application of an existing US Gray match to Sky Grey is more difficult to sustain when any confusion would actually have been about the nature of the Duck Egg Blue recorded on so many US factory drawings.

Michael J F Bowyer's work tends to be overlooked by the revisionists. Early work on camouflage is often discredited because it is early. But Mr Bowyer and Ian D Huntley both used contemporaneous notes and sketches to record the actual appearance of specific aircraft seen at the time. They were observing to record, as enthusiasts interested in the colours and markings, so are a different category to aircrew remembering the machines they flew with no particular interest in colour. Neither records Sky Grey - or any grey - on US export types. On Buffalos Mr Bowyer records:

"Note that the Sky band and spinner differ much in shade from the duck egg shade (blue or green) of the under surfaces."

This precisely relates to a situation where the band and spinner were applied using AM paints to an airframe already painted with the US version of Sky and is to be expected both where the mixing formula for Sky was imprecise and/or the US manufacturer was matching to the description Duck Egg Blue. As an example of an export match Du Pont 71-021 is not like Sky - but it is not like Sky Grey either.

My uncle fitted RAF radio sets into newly arrived Tomahawks and when he was still alive I discussed this subject with him on several occassions. He was adamant that the US delivery colours approximated the contemporary RAF colours and although the undersurfaces were a different shade they were an approximation of Sky and not a grey.

*Hypothetical in that I have never seen published or referenced primary documents confirming this confusion or commenting upon it.

Posted

What if Brewster was as cheap as could be and used the same gray for the underside for all its customers, Dutch, British and USAAF. All B&W and no way to verify.

Construction.jpg

Most likely Ex-Dutch

USAAF.jpg

F2ABuffaloassembly.jpg

f2a3vmf112.jpg

Posted

Thanks for the response. Has the question been asked about the Cockpit interior colour?

Thanks again for your time on my questions.

Yes, see post above where Bingham-Wallis recalls pale blue. There are others too, some remembering grey. It doesn't help much beyond giving a clue because the individual perception of colour is always subjective. Sky tended to fade towards grey and the US export Sky always looked more greyish anyway where it wasn't the pale blue.
Posted
What if they didn't? Besides Mr Bowyer describes RAF camouflaged Buffalos transferred to the RN as having duck egg green undersurfaces.

And almost certainly they did, but applied by the British, not Brewster. The aircraft transferred to the FAA were ex-Belgian, which had a brown and green camouflage (but darker than MAP colors) with aluminum lacquer undersurfaces. The FAA Buffaloes retained the Belgian uppersurface camouflage pattern, which was similar to but not the same as the MAP pattern used on the RAF order (and which did not have "A" and "B" variations that the RAF aircraft did). Presumably, therefore, they didn't change the Belgian uppersurface colors.

Totally different than the aircraft ordered by the RAF, and therefore not applicable to the question of RAF Buffaloes.

By the way, the Dutch aircraft also used aluminum lacquer undersurfaces, with two shades of green for uppersurface colors.

Since there is no existing Brewster documentation re the RAF Buffaloes, I'm not opposed to the idea that 71-021 (ersatz-Sky?) was used. The picture gets confused, however, by the existing camou drawing for the Grumman G-36A, which (in additon to bizarre upper surface colors) calls for "Duck Egg Blue" undersurfaces. I don't think 71-021 would have been described as blue. So there were some odd colors around in the 1940-41 time period on Long Island.

I've also been bothered by the conflicting descriptions, some of which speak of a light blue undersurface on Buffaloes. Steve makes a legitimate point about Brewster - they veered between dodgy and befuddled sometimes. For example, they totally misunderstood the Dutch serial system, and although the aircraft right after B-399 should have been coded B-3100, Brewster just went to B-400 and marked several succeeding Dutch aircraft incorrectly (at least one made it to the NEI so coded) until the Dutch inspector caught the mistake. Maybe (and this is speculation!) Brewster started using something like Grumman's "Duck Egg Blue", just as they were using incorrectly proportioned 1-2-3 undersurface roundels. We know that at some point, someone spotted the error in the roundels (Mark Haselden has narrowed this down to somewhere above W8180) and when directing a change to correct 1-3-5 proportion roundels, conceiveably directed a change in the undersurface color at the same time. Again, the undersurface color part is sheer speculation, but given the fragmentary Brewster records, we don't have a written record to rely on.

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...