MilneBay

Yes Edgar - all very sensible, however you fail to understand that the appearance of an aircraft that is flying 2, 3 or more sorties in one day in periods of high activity, such as the BoB or the post-D Day combat in Normandy is going to have a very different level of grime and general wear to its finish than an aircraft that is occupied flying sorties one or twice a week with time in between for some TLC. As for apocryphal stories about handkerchiefs slipping off leading edges, as I said, I wonder what a squadron CO would say during the the BoB if one of his pilots refused to fly because his aircraft failed the handkerchief test. Wear on aircraft is a combination of activity, operational theatre and time available for cleaning up. There aren't any hard fast rules and despite all the official memoranda in the end it is what's happening at the sharp end that will determine the aircraft's appearance. So please leave off the the vacuous remarks about people trying to convince themselves that their opinion is correct, some of us can look at photos you know.

And precisely at what stage in the combat and wear cycle is the aircraft being modeled at? After it has just landed from a sortie, after it has just rolled out of a MU, after it has been rolled out of the hangar after a 100 hour check and maintenance, just before going up for its third sortie on a busy day in the Battle of Britain. I can imagine what the CO of a squadron fighting in 11 Group of Fighter Command in the middle of the Battle of Britain would say to some young sergeant pilot who had refused to take off until the maintenance crew of his particular aircraft had polished the leading edge of the wing until his handkerchief would slide off. In fact I can easily imagine what the Flight Sergeant in charge of the sweating Erks would say. Plenty of time at night to clean the battle stains off but only after the more pressing mechanical issues had been sorted, and no squadron CO would work his maintenance crew into the ground when he knew that for the foreseeable future they would be needed to keep fighters ready for pressing combat needs. Or is the aircraft on a forward airfield in Normandy flying ground support missions against the Germans in that hot dusty summer when grit was clogging up carburetors, German AA was taking its toll and pilots were flying many sorties a day and the ground crews were exhausted. Was each aircraft cleaned and polished every time it landed?. Perhaps when the fighting slowed down but not I would suggest prior to each sortie. They would be, just as in the Battle of Britain, rearmed and refueled as quickly as possible. Weathering and aircraft wear is a relative thing and there are many stages at which an aircraft can be dirty or clean or even just a bit worn. Overweathered aircraft models are very popular simply because a lot of modelers don't know when to stop but that doesn't necessarily mean that weathered and worn aircraft are not correct depictions. If one is weathering a model the best guide are photographs and a serious think about what stage of an aircraft's combat life the model depicts.

Very true - I always tend to take these tales with a grain of salt. Usually they have gained more certainty with each retelling, and I might add a great deal of polishing to impress the audience. Personally I don't like models that are made to look like they have spent their entire careers fighting in a coal mine, especially models of BoB fighters many of which simply didn't last long enough to build up much dirt. However there is no doubt that aircraft finishes do undergo wear and tear, and in theatres where the climatic conditions are harsh this is amply shown to be correct e.g. Nth Africa.

That is a very good point about their use as a stencil to allow a chalk outline to be drawn rather than as a simple mask for spraying. It is the latter suggested usage that seems the less satisfactory explanation - the familiar Curtiss photo notwithstanding.

No one is trying to deny it - on the contrary some like myself are seeking further confirmation of their existence because even with small aircraft these masks may, I suggest, become quite unwieldy. Nor is it in anyway denigrating previous research if people ask questions about it, it is simply stock standard research methodology. I note that no one has asked about how these masks were stored when not in use - if they were made to accurately allow the approved pattern to be applied then any form of storage that distorted them like folding could possibly have been out of the question, especially if the paint was still wet. Also given the pace of aircraft production multiples would be needed, and I suspect that because of wet paint build up there may have been allowance for duplicate masks to be used while that paint was drying. Dry paint being lighter than wet. There are many questions simply regarding the practicalities which must also be considered in the search for further information.

Oh well can't blame a fellow for trying.

Given the rather pressing circumstances at the time I suspect that your guess could be pretty much on the money.

While you're at it how about an accurate wing and engines?

What a dab of filler? - gosh that is hard work.

Go for the Airfix - the amount of modelling you will have to do to clean up the fit is far less than you will need for the Special Hobby kit. However as I have no idea what level you are as a modeler then I could be being presumptuous and for that I apologise. I am a great fan of Special Hobby and I enjoy the challenges those kits provide and the challenge of also having to hone my skills with every kit. If you are a fairly average modeler with only a little experience of the deep end of the pool then go for the Airfix, if you like and enjoy a real challenge go for the Special Hobby. I have built a variety of Spitfire variants using the Airfix kit as the starting point and I am reasonably satisfied with them, however I wouldn't mind a crack at the Special Hobby kit also.

It will be interesting if Revell actually do something. I think one can count the number of times a kit manufacturer has actually corrected a gross error on the fingers of one hand. Tamiya did eventually with the 1/48 Meteor MkI that had the airbrakes; Trumpeter did when the fuselage contour errors on their F4F Wildcat were pointed out quite vociferously; however I can't immediately think of any others.

I don't suppose Bowyer provided source references for the colours did he?

That's an interesting scheme Mikkel.

Thanks for that. My other problem with the question of these masks is that whenever the subject is raised the only pic offered is that now cliched Curtiss pic, which might simply reflect a local Curtiss effort to respond to mass-producing an unfamiliar camouflage scheme rather than any direction to use them. Curtiss did take short cuts where they could - the provision of nationality insignia as dope-on decals is one. I do wonder if there are actually specific pics of these masks being used in British factories. I did once see a set of pics from the late 20s/early 30s of large round leather templates being used to paint the upper roundels on flying boats. But despite all the discussion I haven't seen any of British wartime production using them. If they do exist, and I am not denying the possibility, I wonder if anyone can point me in the direction of where they might be found.

It's a lovely kit which is marred by the dropped flap option that Tamiya have engineered into it. Corsairs generally weren't parked with lowered flaps, although some were as photos show. Unfortunately building it with raised flaps is difficult given the way Tamiya have designed the parts.

I am intrigued by the reference to a Hurricane in Light Slate Grey/Dark Slate Grey - regardless of its accuracy I am tempted to build one anyway.

Red, green, orange from the leading edge.

Well I am glad to see you understand the meaning of hagiography and can demonstrate it quite well.

I must admit I have also shared these reservations about the use of mats as large masks. Given the sheer quantity of war time production the constant addition of dried paint would have made them progressively heavier and therefore given their size increasingly difficult to move. I am familiar with the horse hair rubberized mat material and it is not insubstantial. Also there is in many photos of camouflaged aircraft clear evidence of a heavier/darker application at the edges and a slight progressive lightening off of the intensity as it moves from the demarcation. This suggests that an outline was tightly sprayed first (to a quickly drawn line of some type) then the interior of the colour was more quickly filled in. Some years ago pre-YouTube (it might be on YouTube) I saw in a TV documentary on wartime production film of the construction of Whitleys. The camouflage was being sprayed without masks and at quite a close distance with a very narrow spray jet. The resulting demarcations were quite crisp. Now it may well be that some aircraft were painted with mats as masks early on but as production ramped up this practice fell by the way side. What was acceptable for peace time production becoming obsolete in the face of war time needs.

I do apologise, but you have missed my point completely. My reference to modern refers to the ongoing process of historical inquiry which as it occurs in the present is therefore "modern" and relies upon constantly evolving methodology. The days are long gone when simple unsubstantiated eye witness accounts were accepted unreservedly. As for the original comment by Edgar that sparked my objection it was not that of an historian, amateur or professional, but that of a hagiographer, there is an important distinction. Now back to the other matter - a scheme of Light Slate Grey/Dark Slate Grey is quite interesting and one that deserves further study.

I wonder if that pale colour could also be intensified by dried salt spray - the aircraft was out in the open.

Quite, however there is a difference which you will no doubt understand between saying that Bowyer is wrong and surmising as some are that a scheme of Light Slate Grey/Dark Slate Grey is somewhat unusual. While I understand that many people hold Mr Bowyer in high regard that does not necessarily mean that he is automatically always correct about colours he observed, only that people hold him in high regard. But that is just fair evaluation in any research circles, but to throw in as you did the claim that anyone who doubts the existence of the blue P51s is somehow indulging in dangerous modernism and was besmirching his reputation, or that of any other tribal elders we aviation enthusiasts may have was rather silly as no doubt on clearer reflection you will admit. History is always being revised as new evidence emerges or as researchers look at old topics and conclusions with fresh eyes and accordingly it always is modern.

The location of the Officers' Mess near to the Sewage Works must really have wee weed off a few people.

No, but I also expect that if you are in some confusion about the colours then you don't turn it into a rant about how we modern people are idly throwing away the observations of our predecessors who are always somehow more worthy than us. Being of an age to remember these mythical god-like creatures I can tell you that it isn't so. The true research attitude is to keep an open mind and be prepared to accept that even the most lauded of our predecessors in this hobby might, possibly, have got it wrong. A combination of Light Slate Grey and Dark Slate Grey is rather different and I have not heard of it before - I would expect that the repaint would be in the standard TSS. The combination of the two slate greys would have to my eye a contrast similar to the Luftwaffe RLM 72/73 scheme. Perhaps some experimentation but also logically if they were in a hurry then experimentation would lose out to practicality, so perhaps the original observation is wrong, or the result of viewing in a poor light.

Thanks for that - coincidentally that conversion is next on the assembly line for me. I was curious about the wing dihedral part in the instructions.