Spitfire Interior Colours

[Mark12]

Reconstruction of P9374. Scale 1:1

Internal finish to Supermarine period specification - 'Aluminium' and 'Grey Green'.

Image Col Pope.

[Mark12]

That also provides a nice image of the original ring gunsight as well (painted in the same green color).

Thanks Mark12!

[Edgar]

A couple of interesting finds, at Kew, last Saturday:- in October/November 1941, the decision was taken to combine DTD308 with DTD83A, because the make-up was identical, even though their purpose differed. In an enquiry, the "Master Provision Officer," of 35 M.U. mentions "Reference 309 Cockpit Grey Green," which was a DTD308 colour.

In 1943, a list of colours includes 308, 309 & 456, under "DTD 83A or 308," but it is now named as just Grey Green. It is also listed as 500, 501, & 503 under "Synthetic DTD 314 or 517.

In 1945, under DTD 751, 752, 753, 754, or 755, it appears, still as Grey Green, with the references 746, 747 & 748. Those last 5 DTD references were largely intended for Far East use, over a white undercoat.

It appears that "Cockpit Grey Green" (not Interior, sorry about that) became just Grey Green (maybe in anticipation of it replacing silver as the general interior colour? )

Edgar

[JMChladek]

I'm also presuming that the undercarriage bays of a pre-war Spitfire were aluminium as well? Reason I inquire is although the aircraft I'm building has a black and white bottom scheme, I'm going under the assumption that since 19 Squadron's planes originally were aluminium on the bottom, the wheel wells likely remained that colour when the bottoms got painted over.

[Mark12]

I'm also presuming that the undercarriage bays of a pre-war Spitfire were aluminium as well? Reason I inquire is although the aircraft I'm building has a black and white bottom scheme, I'm going under the assumption that since 19 Squadron's planes originally were aluminium on the bottom, the wheel wells likely remained that colour when the bottoms got painted over.

I can't give you a definitive answer but the best brains and research went in to this multi-million pound restoration to get it absolutely perfect and original.

[JMChladek]

Okay, food for thought (thanks again Mark) and interesting. This leads to yet another question though. When did the RAF begin using the red tape over the gun ports? I'm under the impression that it was something that wasn't added until freezing guns were considered a problem due to lack of hot air ducts for gun heaters.

[Edgar]

Supermarine introduced mod 259 "To delete covers for gun tunnels and empty case chutes and to substitute fabric patches in lieu," from 24-9-40; however, we don't know what those "covers" were like, how they fitted, or if Supermarine followed the lead of RAF groundcrew (the Local Technical Committee discussed the patches on July 3rd.) Some form of heating (possibly drawn from the back of the radiator) existed before the war; it's possible to see the conical hot air exits/extractors fitted to K5054.

Edgar

[JMChladek]

Thanks again Edgar. Given the timeframe, I'll leave the red tape covers off since I see no hint of them in a couple of the period reference images I have.

[John]

Thanks again Edgar. Given the timeframe, I'll leave the red tape covers off since I see no hint of them in a couple of the period reference images I have.

There's quite a good set of photos of a 602 Squadron Mk1 at Drem in late 1939 or early 1940 that appear to show patches. They have been reproduced in threads on here, a search under "Drem" will probbaly bring them up.

John

[Seahawk]

When did the RAF begin using the red tape over the gun ports? I'm under the impression that it was something that wasn't added until freezing guns were considered a problem due to lack of hot air ducts for gun heaters.

From The Guns of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945 by G F Wallace, William Kimber, 1972, (p.45):

"Next [after the problem of liberally-applied lubricating oil congealing and causing gun stoppages in the "exceptionally severe" winter of 1939-40 had been sorted by going over to a sparing mixture of lubricating oil and paraffin] it was found that if an aircraft first of all passed through moist air, which condensed on the guns, and subsequently entered air below freezing point, the condensation would freeze on the guns and cause stoppages. On fixed gun fighters this was tackled in two ways. First the gun bays were sealed and heated, usually by means of hot air from the exhaust system; secondly to prevent cold moist air blowing down the barrel into the gun bay, the barrel had to be sealed. Where the guns were sunk into the wing this was done by doping a patch of fabric over the blast tube but where the gun projected beyond the wing a rubber cover was placed over the gun muzzle. The disadvantage of this was that it would only guarantee that the guns would remain unfrozen for the first burst."

So sometime during "winter 1939-40" seems to be your answer.

Wallace was a major figure in the Air Ministry Gun Section and is writing from personal experience. He goes on to explain why this problem was not encountered until the winter of 1939-40: "the reason is that during peacetime the fighter squadrons only fired their guns during the annual armament training camp, which always took place during the summer months"!

[Andrew Jones]

So sometime during "winter 1939-40" seems to be your answer.

Wallace was a major figure in the Air Ministry Gun Section and is writing from personal experience. He goes on to explain why this problem was not encountered until the winter of 1939-40: "the reason is that during peacetime the fighter squadrons only fired their guns during the annual armament training camp, which always took place during the summer months"!

There is also the fact that combats were increasingly taking place at higher altitudes as the air battles continued.

Andrew

[JMChladek]

That is what I was figuring. So a Spit from May 1939 wouldn't have the covers. Thanks.

EDIT: I just had a EUREKA moment. My mixed colour still looked a bit too dark and too green. So I decided to see what would happen if I oversprayed it with straight Tamiya XF-21 Sky, using the greener shade as something of a pre-shade. I did it and BLAMMO! I got the exact colour I trying to achieve for Spit cockpit green. The result was a very nice looking shade and it seems to be the right shade darker in comparison to Testors Sky to work. In any event, this is going to now be the colour I'll use on all my Spitfire cockpits from here on out as it seems like the consensus is that this colour was used for ALL Spit cockpits. Am I correct in that assessment?

The preshade is probably overkill as I think Tamiya Sky can work fine out of the bottle if you use a lighter shade for normal Sky. But, I think if you add a very tiny amount of a darker green shade to it, that can stain it just enough to get it where one might be comfortable with it.

Edited September 12, 2012 by JMChladek

[JMChladek]

Okay, here are a couple images of my results. The piece I am showing is my modified non-armor plated Spit Mk 1 seat bulkhead assembly. I placed it on a couple of the Mk I cockpit artworks found on Page 60 of SAM Productions Modeller's Datafile #3 Supermarine Spitfire Part 1, Merlin Powered Spitfires to compare it with the colour printed on those pages. The first image is without a flash and the second one is with a flash:

I figure I would do this rather than just shooting an image of the part as I figure some of you might have the book in your collections already, so you would have a point of reference for the color if the monitor makes the resulting colour look a little funky. The camera also interpreted some of the shades a little different from what my eyes see, but it looks like it is the closest match I'll come up with. Considering that Tamiya acrylic paint is readily available worldwide, that is about as close to a universally available paint as I've found and I prefer using paints straight from the bottle as opposed to having to mix them.

Edited September 12, 2012 by JMChladek

[Edgar]

There's an inherent danger with trying to fix on a standard for colours, which lasted throughout the war, since there were shortages, as mentioned in a post-war 1947 A.M.O.

A photo of the Science Museum's S6B cockpit, appears to match that of the cockpit of Mk.I AR213, and photos of an early-war Finnish Hurricane appear show a very similar colour.

Colour chips are fine, but don't tell us the formulae, or any possible difficulties of supply. There is a (undated) report, in Kew, on the state of supply for various ingredients, which is an exercise in total frustration, since it could relate to almost any time scale; mention of carbon black being supplied on lend-lease puts it squarely into the war, though.

There is the human element to consider, as well; colour chips were (apparently) produced and supplied by Farnborough, but there were over 120 paint manufacturers, so were all batches identical, did the inspectors always check samples against the colour cards in daylight (even in foul weather,) did the sprayer stir the paint every time, to the same consistency?

A few years ago, I met a man, who produces the fibre-glass replicas that we see everywhere, and he told me how an ex-erk had told him that, when they ran short of cockpit green, they mixed their own, from a combination of camouflage green and Sky.

Edgar

[Nick Millman]

Not wishing to rain on Mr Chladek's parade but the comparison of mixed hobby paints to printed colour pages has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the colour of real paint let alone becoming a "reference" for anything. I'm not saying the achieved colour is not correct but only that there is no basis here for determining whether it is or it isn't apart from how it looks in the images, notwithstanding issues of colour reproduction, scale and technique. Personally and for the reasons Edgar touches on above I'm not sure whether there really was a separate "early Spitfire cockpit colour" or just variants of a standard "intended" colour that might have changed in composition and designation over the war years. I have also encountered anecdotal evidence for the expedient painting of RAF cockpits and have posted it here in the past.

Even FS 595b allows for latitude in the specification of paint colour:-

"S3.3.3 Color Matching Criteria. In specifying color, the procurement documents should state:

a. The FED-STD-595 color number;

b. The source (or sources) of illumination under which the color is to be matched; and

c. The method by which the color is to be matched; either:

(1) ASTM D 1729 -- Visual Evaluation of Color Differences of

Opaque Materials -- state whether critical or general match; or,

(2) ASTM D 2244 -- Calculation of Color Differences from

instrumentally measured color coordinates. -- State for CIELAB color space the maximum color difference and the maximum hue difference tolerated. Name and address of organization supplying paint chip."

So this provides not just for subjective visual matching to two standards of accuracy (critical and general) but also latitude where measuring equipment is used.

A thread that consists mainly of colour photographs and opinions on their interpretation isn't paint colour research. It's just perception.

[gingerbob]

I was beginning to think along the same lines, Nick, but I think he was just giving us a chance to look at the colour in the book and remove the vagaries of how the screen portrays it, not trying to "prove" anything.

As for me, I like the basic recipe- certainly a better use for Tamiya Sky than something that's painted Sky!

bob

[Smithy]

Just my 2c / 2p's worth...

In terms of gun patches, photographic evidence seems to suggest that these became standardised squadron applied in late winter / early spring so earlish 1940 which seems to run true with what Seahawk has posted.

In terms of interior colour there really doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule for early Spits. Archaeological evidence seems to suggest that different colours may have been used, from the "apple green" seen on X4422 to the lightish colour on others (AR213?). Personally I think if you are modelling an early production Spit and choose to use a colour which is a brighter or lighter green than the "usually seen" interior grey/green no one can really unequivocally fault you.

And I doubt whether a hard and fast rule for early Spits will ever materialise. Personally I would say use what you want within the parameters of the bright to light greens and you'll be within the boundaries of "acceptable tolerance"!

Cheers,

Tim

[JMChladek]

I was beginning to think along the same lines, Nick, but I think he was just giving us a chance to look at the colour in the book and remove the vagaries of how the screen portrays it, not trying to "prove" anything.

As for me, I like the basic recipe- certainly a better use for Tamiya Sky than something that's painted Sky!

bob

And that is precisely what I was trying to do. I know all about how paints can change and how field mixes can come about. The book is the only reference I've got that potentially several others who build Spitfires have which they can look at and say "Okay, Tamiya Sky could work I suppose". I can't just shoot a picture of the part and say "see, that is my colour" due to how certain softwares and monitors interpret colour. But, if I go from a frame of reference, such as a book (which uses process colour to at least try to hit some sort of industry standard so that what is printed in the first book on the production line matches the last one) it can potentially give a little better reference.

I know precisely every aircraft subject can be a little different. Which is why one should consider the fine print that says "product may differ from one seen on screen". But sometimes a baseline standard is all we have to go upon in the absense of anything more definitive, especially in the absense of being able to go to a nearby museum to check out a Spitfire on display or being worked on.

Every individual model is going to be a judgement call though on the part of the builder. He or she has to make choices depending on what references, products and tools are available in that part of the world, as well as individual skills. Nothing is manditory. Smithy also makes a good point how there will likely be variations to this early colour as well. Until I get a time machine built, I won't be able to do much there.

In the end, all I am saying is "This is the product I am going to use. It may work for you. Here is a reference you may have to help reinforce what I am saying. But it doesn't mean you 'have' to use this."

Thanks again to everyone as you helped to give me a better understanding of Spit colourings than I ever had before. Now I just have to keep building my model.