occa

It was stated that the DG/DE colors looked too dark when seen from above from high altitudes. It was soon superseded by the Ocean Grey - Dark Green scheme so it was not very commonly used. I am going to look and find the page later today ...

That is a great reproduction!! This confirms my personal take, colors just were just too far off from DE/DG for me regardless of all the different discolorations of the copies that exist .... Thanks for clearing this up VT

Daz to me the uppersides of all Lancs I saw in color (and even in B/W) are much too light to be DE/DG. Maybe I am going to collect some pics and make a new thread about this ugh ...

I think that is in high flying scheme means Light Earth and Light Green, there was a mention of this in Camoflage & Markings No 2, The Battle for Britain by Paul Lucas. There are dark green patches on the leading edge that show the difference. Warning, off topic: Same as almost all Lancs were painted in the same colors, I dunno if anyone has been mentioning this before even ... Later high flying bombers from 1941 on were not painted in DG/DE, every color pic proves this. There are photos of fresh Canadian built Lancs in Freeman's The RAF iof WW 2 in Color, clearly in light earth light green. I am aware this claim could cause a storm lol. Sorry for the thread drift, I am aware this is another topic ...

I heard that one is in US Olive Drab + US Neutral Grey on the uppersides ... Edit: Some of you already pointed to that, sorry I am late I know.

Edgar which article are you speaking of, and in what SAM issue was it published? Thanks in advance Occa

Sorry I only have that letter ATM, will search to find more info but I am not sure where I saw it ...

This might provide another piece in the puzzle even if it does not completely resolve the riddle, It's from the SAM December 1999:

Yeah ginger I read that too somewhere ... and I agree to what you said, especially this being a unit ID is extremely unlikely even more as it would have used a standard underside color and if the aircraft is in the sky a bit farer away it would be difficult to spot the difference in the underside colors.

I found a photo but not in the book that I assumed, it's a poor scan as the pic is quite small but one can clearly see the color difference between the underside cowl and the wheel leg cover and the radiator. The aircraft in the center background seems even to have retained the Vokes filter ... http://stashpit.com/images/scannen0001m2011-03-1213007m.jpg

Yeah that is what that reader stated as a response to the the said SAM article which unfortunately I cannot find ATM ... The earlier operation from desert strips was only added as my own assumption .. There is another photo that shows the blue underside cowl in one of Bodie's WWII color photo books, if I recall this correctly.

Finally the right color, Phoenix Precision M114 is the way to go for me either ...

You're welcome NB, meanwhile I have located the SAM stash and I will go through it later or tomorrow, I think I recall it was in the Color Conundrum series they had for awhile and it was a reader's letter that brought up that the Squadron had got rid of the Vokes filters at a certain point cause they no longer operated from desert strips, but don't nail me on the details yet lol, it could well be I am confusing things here a little.

A Skoda Kauba?

I added another taje to my post you quoted ... I am trying to recall, I think I read this in a Scale Aviation Modeller issue, it's quite awhile ago, apparently it affected a bunch of Seafires in the Mediterranian theatre ... the photo posted here is not the only one that shows this. Hope I can find it later ...

I heard they removed the Vokes filter and then painted the panel sky blue ... or the original underside nose panel had still the color it had been painted with before ..

Just wanted to state that Mediterranean skies actually have violet tint when viewed in real ...

There you have the violet tint that most model colors named azure blue completely lack ...

I have to point out that aligning a plan with a photo cannot work even if the photo is taken from quite a distance to the object, plans are flat projections of the real thing while a camera and also the eye always have a degree of distortion due to the view from a spot. My suggestion therefore only works for holding a model before a photo not for comparing a plan. But anyways good to hear you too found out that shapes can often be better checked from photos than from plans, of course measuring the real thing in all directions help greatly to make an accurate model so I say lets combine all methods that are available. I'd just wish the kit manufacturers would be aware of this, too many models look simply out of proportions when compared with the real thing. I am not even going to name kits here, we all seen examples enough. Cheers! Martin

Edgar I don't agree there, you just have to place your eye at a distance to the model which equals the supposed original distance multiplied with the scale the model is in. And I did not say my method would be useful to measure things, just to check the proportions, angles, alignments and general shapes. I was trying to give an example here on posts #38 and 40 about what accuracy info can be gathered from photos also: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...20&start=20

Don't shoot me brother lol There are things that have to be taken into consideration I agree but as long as a pic was not taken over a fish-eye lens one IMHO can actually gather useful info about shape and proportion errors with that method. I mean the projection into the eye is very similar to that of a camera lens + film. Did you ever try it?

This topic seems to be a true mess with all the spitfire kits that are available and no one is fully accurate obviously ... I think there is a much easier way to compare kit's outlines and shapes instead of using often faulty plans.: I mean you have to use pictures that are bigger than the model and hold a pre-assembled kit in front of them at the same angles as the photos were taken. You only have to match the outlines by adjusting the distance between eye, model and photo, best to use a clamp stand to hold the model in place Outline errors can be seen much easier that way and it works with angles especially with results that 3 view plans cannot provide. Best to try it out. To me a mm here and there doesn't matter if the kit has the correct proportions and shape

Guess I can lay the prospect of having a white model with attractive blue undersides aside, bummer lol. Anyway you guys made some valid points so I'll leave it at this. Cheers

Found only this so far: When Azure Blue (FS 35231: Methuen #21B5) was developed, the aircraft were allowed to use this instead http://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=33074.20;wap2 Anyways the underside color of Nicky appears too dark for me to be sky which in B/W photos can often hardly be distinguished from white ....

There is a color photo of an Avro York in Ethell/Bodie's 'WWII WAR EAGLES' on page 111, it has the uppersides in EDSG/DSG with relatively dark blue undersiders, it's for sure not sky ... Sorry could not find a better quality version, in the book it is much better