Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JackG

  1. Gord, that be interesting to see exposed FAA paint underneath the GSB. The walk around set of photos do show some natural wear, but the tail specifically I did not notice any area that could be described as purposely exposed by the restorers. regards, Jack
  2. Just came across Dana Bell's response about Dupont and ANA paints as they pertain to Royal Navy Corsair: I’m aware of two versions of VS-34900, the camouflage and markings drawings for British Corsairs. The original drawing (which I’ve never seen) was dated April 1943; the first revision (“A” revision) released that October notes that the drawing was “Brought up to date.” It appears the only differences involved switching from the birdcage canopy to the blown one. I don’t believe there was a subsequent drawing of FAA camouflage, though I’m sure there was a Goodyear drawing of FAA markings for Glossy Sea Blue Corsair IVs. As I’ve noted earlier, the drawings call out three camouflage colors: Dark Olive Drab duPont 1071-028, Sea Gray duPont 71-19324, and Sky duPont 71-021. While everything I’ve seen says the FAA Corsairs were camouflaged with paints that matched the cited colors, I must admit that NONE of them were painted with duPont 71-series paints. This doesn’t matter to modelers directly, but all duPont 71-series paints were lacquers – and all of the FAA-camouflaged Corsairs were painted with enamels. (The use of enamels also meant that there was no change in colors between fabric and metal surfaces, an issue seen on most US Navy Corsair camouflages.) As noted frequently on this site, in 1938/39 the British Purchasing Commission hired duPont to produce color standards matched to the RAF’s own chips; duPont did OK, but screwed up on several colors. Most US manufacturing drawings and specs quoted the duPont numbers but added the words “or equivalent.” This allowed aircraft manufacturers to purchase from a variety of paint producers, as long as the paints matched duPont’s chips. The ANA agreements were a joint effort to limit the number of paints that aircraft manufacturers needed to stock. The mid-1942 agreements chose the most commonly used color to become the standard, allowing that color to be substituted for an approved list of similar colors. The agreements never required the substitution of a US paint for one of the British paints on the duPont charts, and it appears several of the British colors continued to be purchased and applied by US aircraft manufacturers until fairly late in the war. The ANA color chips released in May 1943 were based on the selected ANA standards, and were reasonable matches. Standardization was particularly important for the Corsair since major subassemblies were being built at subcontractors around the country. Outer wing panels, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, and rudders and elevators needed to match the paints being applied by Vought and Brewster - and photos suggest there was a fairly high degree of consistency. (Note that the demarcation lines needed to align too!) The standard FAA colors in 1943/44 would have been Dark Slate Grey, Extra Dark Sea Grey, and Sky. So, the Corsairs’ colors themselves: Dark Slate Gray – Prior to the ANA agreements, Vought had applied this color (based on duPont 71-19323) to Chesapeakes. By the time Corsairs were in production, the ANA agreements had allowed the substitution of Dark Olive Drab (duPont 1071-028) – here I suspect the “1071" prefix reflect the fact that the AAF lacquer was specially formulated to reduce the infra-red signature. Vought was particularly good about confirming any revisions to color schemes or paints, so I do not believe old stocks of Dark Slate Grey were ever expended on Corsairs - and if they were, the outer wings and tails would not have matched the center wing panels or fuselages. Extra Dark Sea Grey – Again, Vought had used this color (71-19324) on Chesapeakes. In the ANA agreements EDSG was adopted as the standard and renamed Sea Gray. If Vought had leftover stocks of this paint it would have made no difference, but there’s no evidence that it would have mattered, since both color names referred back to the same duPont number. Sky – I’ve major problems with the origins of the US version of this color, but those issues don’t apply to Corsairs (so we don’t have to go there). The Vought Chesapeake drawings call for Sky Type “S” Gray 71-021 or equivalent. (This is the only color on any of the drawing to specify “or equivalent.”) On the Corsair drawings the color is now Sky 71-021, which had been accepted as an ANA standard. Note that 71-021 matched neither British Sky or Sky Grey, but at least was a pale green. Anyhow, I hope that something here is helpful - I know there’s a lot more detail than necessary, but I hope the extra clarifies some of the continuing issues. Cheers, Dana regards, Jack
  3. On 17 March 1941, Inspectorate 2 ordered that equipment in North Africa should be painted two-thirds yellow-brown (gelbbraun RAL 8000) and one-third gray-green (graugrün RAL 7008). Canvas items was to be also to be painted using a special type of paint. On 25 March 1942, Inspectorate 2 ordered that gelbbraun and graugrün were to be replaced by brown (braun RAL 8020) and gray (grau RAL 7027) once existing paint stocks were depleted, using the same pattern. Above was just copy/paste from here: https://panzerworld.com/german-armor-camouflage Incidentally, the first set of colours already existed on the RAL charts for a number of years. Both of them heavily used in the rail industry, according to research from Tomas Chory. ---------- About Italian aircraft paints, the same idea has been offered as being utilized by the Italian Army on their North African vehicles, but has never been proven. The closest may have been a veteran's statement that they used whatever they could get their hands on. ---------- That last photo could easily pass for layers of dust, either natural or purposely applied. Markings were then wiped clean, possibly with a wet rag, with the resulting water streaking? Possibly fingerprints cleaning off the dust on upper edges? regards, Jack
  4. Bare with me while I try to catch up, but I thought the only time Dupont paints have been associated with Royal Navy Corsairs was on the initial instructions for their painting. Dupont were lacquer, while those paints applied to Corsairs were enamel. Can the same paint ingredients be used when switching the solvent base from thinner to mineral spirits? regards, Jack
  5. I agree, adding some grey to your preferred Sky paint is the way forward with ANA 610. Cybermodeler site has a lot of colour info, but the problem is they don't illustrate how well a particular hobby paint brand matches up. For any particular colour you are looking for, the hobby paint columns all have the same digital value straight across. As far as I'm aware, the only WW2 ANA paint chart made available to the public was from Monogram, which Cybermodeler do include in their bibliography of sources. Their British reference though is not the Museum Aviation book often quoted here, but some online modern charts? Digitally I find their Sky duller compared to said book chart, as well as the studies compiled by Nick Millman. As a result their Sky is slightly darker than ANA 610. The colour photos posted earlier of Corsairs are suppose to be from Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine 1943. I think maybe from an American photographer as well? So that could mean Kodachrome film and whatever peculiarities it had with colour. One other photo from that set, maybe this one: Too bad about the staining on the undersides as it hides the nature of colour. General impression though is it looks be a grey green. regards, Jack
  6. @Dana Bell addressed the colours briefly on the first page. From saved past notes, there was also mention "Most of the duPont 71-line paints were lacquers, but the Corsair's RAF paints were enamels (matched to the duPont numbers). So the question is not only how it compared to official RAF Sky paint, but also how close was it to the Dupont sample? From a digital point of view, here are Sky from British Aviation Colours chart compared to a sample from Sovereign's web page for the Dupont version. Below it is the colour luminosity in grey form: regards, Jack
  7. Here's a colour study using using Power Touch demo, software that emulates b/w film. Orange is just a 50/50 blend of roundel red and yellow - no idea if that is official mix. I used the default setting of 80% for filters. At 100 % Red filter, the yellow sample transforms to absolute white. Just a quick observation, utilizing the red filter makes both Roundel Red and Medium Sea Grey near equal grey tone. regards. Jack
  8. For the side air scoops and underside vent there was this posting based on examining photos: https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/84782-132nd-faa-corsair-kd431/page/2/ I've revisited my calculations to compare, and made some adjustments to my original values... The side scoops are easier to calculate because we know the yellow portion of the roundel is 2 inches wide. The forum linked gives an aperture height of 1mm in 32nd scale, that would be about 1.25 inches full scale. I measure 1.47 inches, and that is when viewed at an angle. Not the best photo, but looking at the shape ratio of the scoop and accepting the vertical length as 2.5 inches, the width could easily be 1.75 to 2 inches: The best photo that I can find for calculating the underside vent is this one: I've only a 72nd model to measure with, but taking the distance from the front of the inter cooler flap to the front of the tail wheel bay opening, I scale the above photo. I measured just a half inch more on the width (6.5") compared to six inches of the LSP forum thread. Difficult to be exact with the shadows present. regards, Jack
  9. Yes, beginning to appreciate why all the little fixes here and there. Tamiya 's entry into the Corsair market was basically based on the F4U-1D, so any boxings of earlier marks are composed of the same base sprues. For the tail doors in the closed position, just have to remove the faring, and good to go? @don f thanks again for posting your links and the 'fix it' list. Was wondering though, what is all that plastic sheet you have added on to the wing undersides? A helpful review from Hyperscale points out the rear bulkhead (72nd scale) is too thick causing the seat to sit too far forward. Still with the underside, it also suggests filling in the entire oval of the three backfire pressure relief valves, and reintroducing the detail as this should be flush with the fuselage surface: As for the nub of plastic underneath and just aft of the cowl, if that was for attachment of a central drop tank, I would leave (unless the British designed something of their own?). Entries here show 1836’s Corsairs (in conjunction with 1834 Sqn) were using long range tanks already in August of 1944. http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/471/Navy-Blue-Fighter-Pilot-Episode-Two.aspx For the hole of the forward antenna mast, it seems to still be present as a circular hole when viewing the period film clips. So fill it in and then drill a round hole? Along with this, it seems the fuel access cover has a rectangular cut out? regards, Jack
  10. It's a good thing this thread was started as a number of details are being cleared up thanks to Dana Bell, and it never hurts to brush up on the paint colours, so thanks as well to Jamie. Maybe it was providence that stalled my 72nd build. It will require a bit more than taking a scriber to create the three cowl flaps on top, as there is also the curved edge of the fuselage front end to rebuild. I believe it was stated there should be 3 flaps atop the cowl, so is that one wide section with a narrow section on either side as illustrated here: From this site found these photos interesting: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/09/vought-xf4u-1-corsair.html The upper photo is of the corrected panel line running the circumference of the fuselage - but I find in 72nd scale Tamiya has this line even further forward. Is this incorrect, or was there another amendment during production? From a Hyperscale review, the 1/32 model also seems much further forward: It seems this is characteristic of the Corsair IV, as built by Goodyear. Compare to KD431 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, it looks like Tamiya copied this? -------------------------------- -------------------------------- For the window underneath, Tamiya does provide this as a clear part including the surrounding framework. There is a series of photos showing a pranged Corsair piloted by Sheppard in May 1944: Another pranged Corsair, framework for the window looks to be present, but can't tell is it just glare and dirt covered, painted over, or plexiglass replaced with sheet metal from inside? Same questions with this one, caption had it September 1944: regards, Jack
  11. Hello Gord, if you mean the foothold on the flap of the right wing, yes it was filled in as pointed out on Britmodeller forums. Don't recall mention why FAA Corsairs are without these (but photos do support that the cutout was not present). Whether these were patched over or specially built this way, I could not say. Same thing with the bomb window on the underside of the fuselage, this was fared over if present, but with F4u-1a production this was omitted at the factory. Am not sure what to suggest about the upper cowl flaps. Examples can be found with both styles present in the same photo. It seems the only definite is that by the time the BPF roundel was in use (the one with white bars on either side of the roundel), the upper flaps are eliminated. Since we don't have a photo of Sheppard's bird in January 1945 (I think that's what we both are aiming for?), then there is a good possibility the flaps were replaced with one of those field kits Dana Bell mentioned? You are lucky that the Tamiya 1/32 kit offers a choice with this particular detail. In 1/72 boxings, the plastic is all identical for the cowl flaps, including their birdcage version. regards, Jack
  12. JackG

    RLM 79 confusion

    The reason for not changing the names and RLM numbers for these two particular sets of paints was probably because their second rendition was intended as amendments and not as a replacements? Another way of thinking, why clutter the RLM charts by including the first set of tropical paints when they would only be in existence until used up. As far as dates go, there is nothing definite, but the finalization of preferred tropical paints occurred "... at the close of 1941 and some time early 1942." - per Merrick. regards, Jack
  13. That particular Camel marking scheme is not offered in the new Eduard boxing, which incidentally contains two full kits. The 'overtrees' option (no decals, masks nor PE or instructions) might be a better option, certainly cheaper. Or wait and hope they come out with a weekend addition with the markings you want. Later in the year they will be adding more detailed engine choices as separate purchases, like the Bentley and Clerget. regards, Jack
  14. JackG

    RLM 79 confusion

    https://emmasplanes.com/index.php/paints/rlm-colors/ Came across this site, and found it interesting the digital chips for RLM 78. It looks like they could be just the same colour as light and dark versions. So wondered what if we have a bottle of the 2nd incarnation of underside blue that we are happy with, but want to have the earlier dark version - maybe just add some black? From a digital stand point, it does seem to work. Using the digital value for RLM Black from the same site, an online colour blender is used. An exact match results on the third colour bar. If I've calculated correctly, about 18% black is required, but sounds a bit much for actual paints. Probably have to rely on the Mk I eyeball ... regards, Jack
  15. JackG

    RLM 79 confusion

    The reason for changes in RLM 78 and 79 are spelled out in Merrick's book. Intentionally or by coincidence, Jochen Barett somewhat parodied this in his post that started off "If it would have been me sitting in the RLM in Berlin in the early 40ies..." Back to Merrick, he states the initial sandgelb was created to be an "exact match to the desert sand of North Africa." This was fine when the aircraft was in the air, but when parked on the ground, light reflection would create a more pale appearance, thus comprising any camouflage benefits. Additionally, rapid fading due to the environment was also not taken into consideration. The blue RLM 78 undersides were the opposite problem. They were created too dark, and so for the second version of 78 was lightened for a better match to the Mediterranean skies. Merrick's explanation for this one is more based on theory, but the short version is this initial blue was purposely designed dark so as to be a viable option as an upper surface colour as well as lower. regards, Jack
  16. From what can be learned through the net, P54 is from 757 OTU based in Ceylon. Established in October '43, that could explain the knackered look of the Corsair. The carrier is supposedly identified as HMS Unicorn, tasked for supply and repair of the East Indies Fleet and subsequently the BPF. So combining the two I think the image is illustrating deck training? My conclusion would be a training unit may not exactly portray the markings as seen on front line units, but welcome more info and opinions ... regards, Jack
  17. Unfortunately I don't have any further progress to report on my 72nd build. Some PE I had designed to be custom etched in Scotland brought on delays, and summers always cut into my bench time. Back to roundels, you will notice for the upper wing I went with (I think standard 59 inch diameter for the Corsair). and @Seahawk mentions these would have white centers of 9 inch diameter. He provided the background info in that link I had in my second post. Basically the small roundels for the Far East were set by the RAF in September 1943. The FAA adopted this as well (but without the light blue centers), with the other deviation being the preference of large upper wing roundels. regards, Jack
  18. JackG

    RLM 79 confusion

    Merrick's Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings, 1933-45, Volume 1 has a publication date 2004. It mentions Czech author Tomas Chory found genuine RLM samples of the initial 78 and 79 shades for the tropics, They were inserted as a loose sample in the L.Dv.521/1 manual. So the notion of Italian paints used on Luftwaffe aircraft has been nixed for a while now. This book is now a rare find and quite pricey. but apparently it included colour charts composed of painted chips. Sovereign Hobbies mentions Merrick's book, they offer two options of Sandgelb 78, but only one of 79. https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/blogs/sovereign-about-us-research-and-development/references-how-to-tell-the-good-from-the-bad AK also quote Merrick's book as well as having Kiroff on board to offer advice , but they are known for altering their paints to suit their ideal of scale effect. regards, Jack
  19. One of the few photos I know of 1836 Squadron in the Far East. Note that by September, a couple Corsairs are already sporting smaller roundel. WITH THE ESCORT CARRIER HMS VICTORIOUS DURING THE SIGLI RAID. 18 SEPTEMBER 1944, INDIAN OCEAN, DURING THE CARRIER-BORNE AIR ATTACK AGAINST THE JAPANESE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE CENTRE AT SIGLI, SUMATRA.. © IWM (A 25753) IWM Non Commercial License An often quoted dimension is from a Sam article by Geoff Thomas stating 16" with 6" centres for small aircraft From VintageWings article: http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/471/Navy-Blue-Fighter-Pilot-Episode-Two.aspx I think roundel style for modelling Sheppard's mount depends what you want to depict. Early career would be as the above image, but during his success in the air is more likely the smallest size. regards, Jack
  20. Roundel size probably has to do with a timeline of events. Initially the red centers and yellow fuselage ring were painted out as the Corsairs were delivered with European Theater roundels. The aircraft probably only sported two code letters like so: As seen in the photo caption, by late January 1945, they probably had the proper painted three codes. It could be at this time the roundels were repainted to be of smaller dimensions. Something like this, though the is from an escort carrier in May 1945 (according to Asisbiz web page): regards, Jack
  21. From a technical point, when utilizing three 500 pounders under the wings (two port and one starboard), which location would be the ideal for the single bomb: inner, mid, our outer station? regards, Jack
  22. Tried one more look at the 610 codes, this time on an actual model - Tamiya's latest boxing. Tape has been cut to equal heights, and those two pieces representing the letter D were cut at the same time (tape placed one on top of the other), to ensure they are identical. The tapes representing squadron letters are placed right below the panel line - not saying this how it was done, but would be the most logical starting point. The third tape representing the aircraft code letter, was placed right along the bottom edge were the rear window sits. Measuring with a straight edge along the tops of these markings is near perfect. The bottom measure is actually quite close too, though a bit tricky to coax a ruler over a surface that is curved both in latitude and longitude. Both images are then sized up so they fit the same roundel width. The final step is to superimpose one image over the other: The letters can be seen through the tape in this translucent setting called 'Wireframe mode'. The first D looks good, and the tape on the W position good be adjusted slightly to the left. Now the area of contention, the letter by the cockpit. To me it looks same height (and width) as the other D, just the tape needs to be lowered by about 0.6mm (this was measured in the vector program) so a little over inch in 1:1 scale, as well as an adjustment away from the roundel edge. So all I can say is we agree to disagree. To me it's a difference in interpretation of what's going on with the top of the letter D. In the period photo it does appear the top of the arm is half the brushstroke width. Whether this was purposely truncated, or it's the canopy rail and wearing away of paint - I'm with the latter. regards, Jack
  23. Probably due to misidentified photos. The yellow 5 photo I had posted from the Asisbiz site link has been corrected by Hornet133, including the source. So quite likely the other photo from Asisbiz page dedicated to III/JG54, has incorrectly identified a yellow 10 (perhaps the same one Colin referred to?) as Bf 109E1 9.JG54 Yellow 10 landing accident Germany 1940 02. This cannot be since the third gruppe only came into being in July. regards, Jack
  24. Was just reading another publication on the Barracuda by David Brown, and it mentions in home waters that three 500lb were carried, with two under the port wing and one on the starboard side. This caused problems of asymmetrical take-off load, so at least one squadron (810) adopted a symmetrical payload of one each 250lb and 500lb under each wing, for a grand total of 1500lbs. Six 250lb are also mentioned, but a limit of four were preferred as the the drag reduced operation radius. So in the film I had linked, what weight class are those bombs being winched into place? regards, Jack
  25. The same photo can be seen on page 155 of the 2nd volume from the Battle of Britain Combat Archives. It is a bit clearer, and one thing noticed right away concerning the individual code letter D, is the top is lobbed off due to the rail for the sliding canopy. So have scanned a portion of said image. and followed up with another study: The image was rotated slightly so the antenna lies perpendicular to the blue box. Both the green and red box are same size. Results look similar to the first one - squadron codes sit a bit higher than the lone D. This combined with the interference of the canopy rail is what may be creating the illusion of a smaller letter? regards, Jack
  • Create New...