Another P40 quiery RAF Euopean theatre

[Radpoe Spitfire]

Hi, 613 Squadron operated the P40 from Doncaster in 1941. I understand the early RAF aircraft had the US sand & spinach camo, but what was the underside colour?

Also was the sky band applied before or after the aircraft.arrived in the UK?

Can anyone please enlighten me?

Regards Rad

Edited February 22, 2013 by Radpoe Spitfire

[Troy Smith]

Rad

US sand and Spinach? I think not!

they were supplied in US paint to RAF specs.

undersides were sky,

Have a read here for more on US paint and british specifications, checkc the one on the AVG Tomahawks [which were in RAF specified paint]

http://amair4raf.blogspot.com/search?q=p-40

Sky bands i think applied in UK.

you may find this of use as well.

http://ebookee.org/Camouflage-amp-Markings-Number-12-Tomahawk-Airacobra-amp-Mohawk-RAF-Northern-Europe-1936-45_343846.html

I've not checked the links, try depositfiles first.

HTH

T

PS in light of postings below the booklet maybe out dated, but still does contain many good photographs selected to show the camouflage and markings.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Troy Smith

[Test Graham]

"Sand and spinach" wasn't a term restricted to US deliveries but a common usage for the Dark Green and Dark Earth of the Temperate Land Scheme even on British types. An equivalent for the FAA Temperate Sea Scheme colours was "slime and sewage", but I don't think it was particularly commonly used. The P-40 underside colour I suggest was the Dupont Sky Type S Grey, which isn't too far away from Sky. There have been many discussions based on the AVG "Flying Tigers" aircraft and their use of these colours - I believe the latest thinking is on Nick Millman's blog.

This still leaves the question of any repainting after arrival in the UK. I would expect that the Sky band would have been the only addition.

[LDSModeller]

I can't comment on 613 Squadron, however early P40s delivered to the RAF were in colours close to Dark Green (FS 34092) and Light Earth (FS 30219), hence the "sand and spinach". These colours were researched by Dana Bell from manufacturer's drawings with paint code call-outs to DuPont. (published in the January edition of Fine Scale Modeler, 1995 and "Export Colours" ). ... I won't even attempt the underside colours.

RNZAF received some P 40E's diverted from British MAP stock ex USA in April 1942.

The documents that arrived with the P 40's, give DuPont Colours Dark Green 71-013, Dark Earth 71-009 and

Sky being Dupont would be71-021. I don't think light Earth would have been used (note there are two DuPont Dark earths).

The Roundels were also in DuPont colours

Aircraft looked some thing like this.

The P 40's were fitted after arrival with Sutton Harness's

The link here also given by Troy above is supurb, well researched and worth reading

http://amair4raf.blogspot.co.nz/search?q=p-40

Regards

Alan

[LDSModeller]

Alan,

The term in documents was "Dark Earth" but the colour was "Light Earth".

Cheers,

Mark

Hi Mark

The two Dark Earths are 71-009 and 71-035 respectivly (71-009 is lighter in hue, but not light enough to be a light Earth )

There is a Light Earth in the MAP DuPont paint Standard being 71-048, appears to be a fawn colour.

Dark Earth 71-009 is the colour on the P 40 photo above.

Some great info here

http://amair4raf.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/two-dark-earths.html

Regards

Alan

[Steven Eisenman]

It appears that on the later models a darker Dark Earth was used. No Light Earth was part of the P-40 scheme. The original Dark Earth had a bad habit of fading to a snady color.

The underside was not Sky, but Sky Type S Gray, a color that has been described as a blue-green toned grey.

[Dave Fleming]

http://www.neam.org.uk/Exhibits/History/AH744.htm

There is evidence from pics taken at the time of recovery that the earth area were overpainted in (mixed) Ocean grey, but that has been lost in conservation.

http://www.yorkshire-aircraft.co.uk/aircraft/planes/dales/ah744.html

I must nip into Washington to see it next time I am in the NE

Edited February 22, 2013 by Dave Fleming

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 2/22/2013 at 10:46 PM, LDSModeller said:

Hi Mark

The two Dark Earths are 71-009 and 71-035 respectivly (71-009 is lighter in hue, but not light enough to be a light Earth )

There is a Light Earth in the MAP DuPont paint Standard being 71-048, appears to be a fawn colour.

Dark Earth 71-009 is the colour on the P 40 photo above.

Some great info here

http://amair4raf.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/two-dark-earths.html

Regards

Alan

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Nick Millman]

Alan,

I am trying to help the guy and you are sending him off down the beaten track. The term in the documents was "Dark Earth" but the colour was "Light Earth". Go back and read the references that I quoted. The blog given above is based on Dana Bell's research.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark,

my blog is from my own research and colour analysis. Where it references others I always endeavour to cite them. To suggest that it is based on Dana Bell's research is not just rude but libellous.

For the record Mr Bell does not refer to "Light Earth" in his Fine Scale Modeler article. The DE2000 difference calculation between the Du Pont 71-009 Dark Earth as cited by him and Light Earth is a rather significant 14.4 where less than 2.0 is a close match.

The difference between FS 30219 which he suggests as a match for 71-009 and Light Earth is 8.13.

The difference between 71-009 and FS 30219 is 7.03. FS 30219 is lighter and pinker, at best adequate only for a harshly scaled down and/or badly faded example.

In this case I venture to suggest that "off down the beaten track" is a safer route than up the garden path.

Nick

Edited February 22, 2013 by Nick Millman

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 2/23/2013 at 9:37 AM, Nick Millman said:

Mark,

 

my blog is from my own research and colour analysis. Where it references others I always endeavour to cite them. To suggest that it is based on Dana Bell's research is not just rude but libellous.

 

For the record Mr Bell does not refer to "Light Earth" in his Fine Scale Modeler article. The DE2000 difference calculation between the Du Pont 71-009 Dark Earth as cited by him and Light Earth is a rather significant 14.4 where less than 2.0 is a close match.

 

The difference between FS 30219 which he suggests as a match for 71-009 and Light Earth is 8.13.

 

The difference between 71-009 and FS 30219 is 7.03. FS 30219 is lighter and pinker, at best adequate only for a harshly scaled down and/or badly faded example.

 

In this case I venture to suggest that "off down the beaten track" is a safer route than up the garden path.

 

Nick

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Nick Millman]

Mark

Your statement "The blog given above is based on Dana Bell's research" is clear in its implication whether intended or not. It does not require reading more into it than is there.

There is an 'edit' function for posts and I suggest you use it, thanks.

Nick

[John]

Nick,

I am well aware that you do your own research. You are reading too much into my post and I have apologised to Alan above for my tone. Dana should be mentioned in this thread, to give him the credit he deserves. This is what I did above (in a somewhat poor fashion).

I gave the best descriptive terms that I could. The term "Dark Earth" does not describe this colour because it does not match the well known RAF colour of the same name. Using this term causes confusion. The paint colour Dana suggested was Humbrol 118, which has been called "Light Earth" (FS 30219), though it has also been called "Tan" and "Brown". "Light Earth" is what Geoffrey Pentland called it based on actual paint samples he examined. I am not aware of a paint mix giving a better match to 71-009.

Cheers,

Mark

Humbrol 118 is US Vietnam era Tan. 119 is Light Earth, but I don't know which "Light Earth" it's meant to represent. Humbrol quote 30219 as the nearest FS595 match for both of them, which may well be correct but they're not the same colour.

I think, as a general rule of thumb, descriptive names should be kept lower case.

John

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 2/23/2013 at 9:33 PM, John said:

Humbrol 118 is US Vietnam era Tan. 119 is Light Earth, but I don't know which "Light Earth" it's meant to represent. Humbrol quote 30219 as the nearest FS595 match for both of them, which may well be correct but they're not the same colour.

I think, as a general rule of thumb, descriptive names should be kept lower case.

John

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Nick Millman]

Mark,

I'm sorry about that too. Your latest statement just makes it worse, because in effect you are stating unequivocally that your meaning is that my blog is based on Dana Bell's research. The sentence is as follows: "The blog given above is based on Dana Bell's research."

I cannot see what else that could mean or how exactly it contributes to this thread or indeed why you should insist on maintaining it when I have politely requested a correction.

Notwithstanding your eyesight I have posted the calculated difference between FS 30219 and MAP Light Earth above. This difference can be discerned clearly by comparing the colours in the book mentioned and FS 595b.

Nick

[stevehnz]

I know when painted out a test patch of 119 when looking for a match for MAP Light Earth, I found it far too reddish brown as opposed to the MAP paint chip in my British Aviation Colours of WW2. In fact Hu94 was much closer to LE than Hu119 & would not be a bad match, maybe needing a drop of two of HU29 to tone the yellow down a bit. I did read somewhere that 119 was one of the colours 'sposed to match IAF Light earth, not sure where now.

Mark, may I suggest that if you are unwilling to edit your post for fear of losing continuity to subsequent posts, you might perhaps consider editing it with a qualifying statement appended to the post in view of Nick's assurances that his blog is not based on Dana Bells findings. Sorry if I'm sticking my beak in where its not wanted?

Steve.

[Greg B]

Topic tidied up by request and multiple repeated posts removed. Use the Edit function please gents, seeing repeated photos eats up bandwidth, takes longer to scroll through and ensures that myself and mike have to waste our time tidying up.

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 2/24/2013 at 5:50 PM, Nick Millman said:

Mark,

I'm sorry about that too. Your latest statement just makes it worse, because in effect you are stating unequivocally that your meaning is that my blog is based on Dana Bell's research. The sentence is as follows: "The blog given above is based on Dana Bell's research."

I cannot see what else that could mean or how exactly it contributes to this thread or indeed why you should insist on maintaining it when I have politely requested a correction.

Notwithstanding your eyesight I have posted the calculated difference between FS 30219 and MAP Light Earth above. This difference can be discerned clearly by comparing the colours in the book mentioned and FS 595b.

Nick

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[stevehnz]

Steve: I agree FS 30219 is more pinker (than the RAF colour) but likewise Humbrol 94 is too yellow.

Mark, agreed its too yellow but not by a huge amount, hence suggestion to add some Hu29. I haven't needed to use a light earth yet, so I can't give more detail, but I feel this will satisfy my Mk1 eyeball if not Nicks colorimeter (?) gizmo. I have to confess I'd love one of those but am sure they'd be way too spendy.

Steve

[Nick Millman]

Steve - photospectrometer! Prices vary but like most things you get what you pay for.

IMHO none of those paints look good on a Temperate Land scheme P-40E, notwithstanding issues of scale and fading, let alone an RAF Tomahawk. I tried them circa 1995 and thought the contrast with the Dark Green too stark and unconvincing whilst the dark green suggested - Humbrol 149 - also seemed unconvincing. But each to his own. I haven't tried adding Hu 29 but it sounds like a plan.

Mark - you were not "drawn into" any argument. I had not even commented in this thread until your declaration about my blog which I had not introduced. You chose those particular words yourself. That has now been corrected, thanks to the moderator.

Nick

[Dave Fleming]

HUmbrol have changed the forumla on quite a few of their paints (It seems to have drifted over the years)

[JosephLalor]

I'm wondering if anyone who still has tinlets of Humbrol HX1 (a slightly blue-grey representation of RAF Dark Green) and HU9 (a darker and browner FS30219) would be at an advantage here. I'm also wondering about HU7, which was a bluish representation of FS34079.

Regarding current Humbrol paints, how about darkening 118 with a dash of 29, and lightening 116 with a smaller proportion of light blue, say 65?

Joseph

[Mark Mackenzie]

n/m

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[gingerbob]

Re that AVG photo, I believe the story has been told that the "green patch" around the tiger is varnish over the decal. But that strikes me as one heck of a colour shift for a "clear" coating. Would anyone (Nick?) care to comment on that? Please let's not make it turn into another argument, though, everyone.

bob

p.s. The painting appears to me to represent "day fighter scheme" and "tropical" at the factory, or some such UK location. Henshaw commented on the appearance of Trop Spits lending an almost cheery air to the place. I very much doubt that the artist was trying to faithfully capture the camo colours!

Edited February 25, 2013 by gingerbob

[MilneBay]

It does look too green doesn't it - I wonder if given the yellow colour of the tiger a rough patch of green or OD was applied to make a contrast and then the tiger decal was doped over the top of it.

Edited February 28, 2013 by MilneBay

[Troy Smith]

or just a glossy dark green patch?...as we all know, decals adhere better to a glossy surface...

Just a thought. no proof at all.

T