Malta Spitfire Vs - 1942: Their colours and markings

[Red Dragon]

Graham,

I think we might have had this discussion in the past, non aircraft paint has been used on A/C, sometimes for the unit colours,red nose 4th Fighter Group mustangs, sometimes as a temporary colour, perhaps getting those A/C to Malta came under the temporary heading. When the brown smelly stuff hits the fan you use whatever's handy.

Cheers

Phil

I was not thinking of the pigments used in USN aircraft paints, which would not be separately available on ship. I was thinking of the colours used for hull paint, which were stored separately and mixed as desired. If I should have said Prussian Blue (and they are normally described in Munsell's PB range) rather than Ultramarine, I apologise, but anyway it is not a hypothesis I have any real confidence in. However, from Barham/Weaver I think the colour was bluer than USN Blue Grey. I'm a little surprised that Ultramarine is not considered darker than faded BG M-485, but we live and learn.

However, I would very strongly argue against the use on non-aircraft paint on aircraft, here or at any other time, for reasons of drag and adhesion if nothing else. The paint on Weaver's aircraft has survived several months and is in excellent condition, all things considered. (BC does have something to say about this - better re-read what he says before discussing it!) I don't remember any comments about the colours on Calendar Spits as being "see through", and suspect this is a misunderstanding of the rough overspray applied on the island to later deliveries. where the original colour can be seen at the edges of the demarcation. (BC does have an excellent photo showing this, which for some reason he has chosen not to use.)

[Test Graham]

We have indeed had this discussion before, and I stand by my comments.

[copernicus]

Having seen, on more than one occassion, the restored Spitfire at the <alta Aviation museum, which has been beautifully restored, does anyone know if it has actually beem painted in the correct colour scheme/shades. if so then I'm sure that an email to them might help.

[Aero Imageworks]

I thought it would be worthwhile to provide an example of the analysis and what better Spitfire to use than BR112, 'X'. This is the aircraft in that well known colour photo that we've all seen so often before.

For the record, I have reservations about the authenticity of this photo as it looks to me to be 'colorised' or tinted, something isn't right with it. We don't have any detail about who what etc. of the photo. Is it based on a transparency (slide) or a paper photo? Has the author copied the original or is it a copy of copy, has he seen the original print?

The c&m analysis isn't right imho but rather than give my view, have a look at the photos and see if you can see some problems emerging.

On a positive note, the profile artwork is of a very high standard and as a profile artist myself that's saying something, well done!

I'll give my view on this a/c later, in the meantime read and view the photos here;

http://www.aeroimageworks.com/spitfiresintheantipodesblog_files/weaver1.jpg
http://www.aeroimageworks.com/spitfiresintheantipodesblog_files/weaver2.jpg
http://www.aeroimageworks.com/spitfiresintheantipodesblog_files/weaver3.jpg

[JohnM]

My copy of this book has just arrived from Amazon and they honoured the pre-order price of £12.79. This would be a bargain if the book was complete but it's not. Pages 130, 131, 134, 135, 138, 139, 142 & 143 are blank.

Can anybody else who has received the book confirm whether their copies are complete? I'd like to establish whether my copy is a one off or whether there has been a wider print fault before I return the book to Amazon.

John

[robertp]

My copy of this book has just arrived from Amazon and they honoured the pre-order price of £12.79. This would be a bargain if the book was complete but it's not. Pages 130, 131, 134, 135, 138, 139, 142 & 143 are blank.

Can anybody else who has received the book confirm whether their copies are complete? I'd like to establish whether my copy is a one off or whether there has been a wider print fault before I return the book to Amazon.

John

Hi,

It happen from time to time during production, that some page are blank.

We (MMP) will replace the copy if Amazon doesn't.

Regards

Robert

MMP/Stratus

[Steven Eisenman]

The photos of the launch (Calendar) were taken in the dim light of dawn, and the Spitfires appear very much darker than the F4Fs in the background. This is the only opportunity for a clear comparison at the same time and place, and the F4Fs are clearly not newly painted. Close-ups of the Spitfires in better light show a colour less dark than that but (to my eye at least, and apparently Stephen's too) still rather too dark for M-485. I'm not sure quite how dark M-485 may appear when spanking new, but to match the Spitfires it would need to be considerably darker than the colour presented in Archer, or in any colour photo I've seen.

As Stephen said, Brian's book isn't going to provide absolutely watertight answers to everything, but it is a more thorough approach than anything else presented to date. Plus it is rather nicely presented with lots of Spitfire photos and some very pretty profiles - often adjacent to both the photographs they are based on and the reasons given for the choice of colours.

I just finsihed reading the monograph from cover to cover and it provides no answers. As for Calendar,specifically, he does not even addrees the issue of the amount of paint required for 30 Spitfires. A US carrier does not carry enough paint to repaint nerely two squadrons. At best touch up paint.

[Mark Mackenzie]

I just finsihed reading the monograph from cover to cover and it provides no answers. As for Calendar,specifically, he does not even addrees the issue of the amount of paint required for 30 Spitfires. A US carrier does not carry enough paint to repaint nerely two squadrons. At best touch up paint.

Steven,

That is a very good point that no one has mentioned before! In general, I felt the book itself was very well done and good value for money. The author has provided a solution for a great number of aircraft with photographs of each aircraft to back up his argument and colour plates to illustrate it. There is even a photo of Denis Barnham's white-spotted Spitfire. For modeller's this is perfect. I was happy to see a Grey/Brown Spitfire, which is interesting and which I was unaware of. Something I'd like to do one day. As you have mentioned above there is plenty to argue about, but it would be hard to produce a book like this which doesn't provoke arguments, would it not? Personally I thought the Spitfire of the Wing-Commander was in Sea-Scheme.

I found the service from MMP to be excellent. Mine arrived in Australia about a week after ordering.

Cheers,

Mark

[Test Graham]

There's still a number of unresolved inconsistencies about the Calendar operation. I think Stephen's comment about stocks requires confirmation, if only because the aircraft (or at least some of them) clearly were painted "en voyage" and that the paint must have come somewhere. If not from USN stocks then where? I still think that if 50 Spitfires could be delivered to the Wasp, then a few gallons of paint would not have presented any problem. It has been said Wasp records do not show any paint taken on board at Glasgow, but I'm not sure that it necessarily would have been accounted for in that way - and would query whether such records do include the hydraulic oil etc that would also have been taken on board to ensure serviceable Spitfires. (48 out of 50 is not bad.)

Brian has missed one point about Calendar: In his biography Jack Rae comments during the loading that the aircraft were in a light blue, not Sky as shown in the profile. The same will have applied to Bowery, presumably. Later, he does mention Ted Hooton's comment that Supermarine's tropicalised Mk.Vs had Sky Blue undersides, which would agree with Rae's observation.

It is perhaps interesting that the instructions for Bowery call for the aircraft to be "sea camouflaged before embarkation". My emphasis,because I wonder just what that might imply about the previous attempt. Possibly nothing, of course, but given the actual history it looks to me as though it could.

Brian's book is the most thoroughly argued text and best presented material on the subject so far: he doesn't suggest that it answers all the questions.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Graham Boak

[Brad]

I got a copy today, all the way down here in Australia and I think it's a very nice book. Now, off to buy some spitfire kits....

[Mark Proulx]

I too have received my copy of Brian's book. Similar to other books from this publisher, I am very impressed! Brian is very clear throughout his effort that many best guess assumptions are made. He explains his rationale for his assumptions and they are clearly not stated as fact.

If I have one negative comment about the book, it is with the location of the superb color profiles. I would have liked to have seen them on a separate page and not cluttered up by photos and text as it currently provides. I think it detracts from the quality of the artists work.

However, I do want reiterate the book is very well done and I would gladly recommend it to anyone wishing to study Malta Spitfires. I think it provides the best information on the subject to date.

Mark Proulx

[John]

There's still a number of unresolved inconsistencies about the Calendar operation. I think Stephen's comment about stocks requires confirmation, if only because the aircraft (or at least some of them) clearly were painted "en voyage" and that the paint must have come somewhere. If not from USN stocks then where? I still think that if 50 Spitfires could be delivered to the Wasp, then a few gallons of paint would not have presented any problem. It has been said Wasp records do not show any paint taken on board at Glasgow, but I'm not sure that it necessarily would have been accounted for in that way - and would query whether such records do include the hydraulic oil etc that would also have been taken on board to ensure serviceable Spitfires. (48 out of 50 is not bad.)

Brian has missed one point about Calendar: In his biography Jack Rae comments during the loading that the aircraft were in a light blue, not Sky as shown in the profile. The same will have applied to Bowery, presumably. Later, he does mention Ted Hooton's comment that Supermarine's tropicalised Mk.Vs had Sky Blue undersides, which would agree with Rae's observation.

It is perhaps interesting that the instructions for Bowery call for the aircraft to be "sea camouflaged before embarkation". My emphasis,because I wonder just what that might imply about the previous attempt. Possibly nothing, of course, but given the actual history it looks to me as though it could.

Brian's book is the most thoroughly argued text and best presented material on the subject so far: he doesn't suggest that it answers all the questions.

These are points we've discussed before but I can't see the problem with delivering paint with the airframes - for all we know the tins may have been bagged up and strapped into the seats. I'd also be wanting to know of the embarkation records detail other unique items like British calibre machine gun and cannon ammo.

John

[Test Graham]

The ammunition bays were filled with pilot's baggage and goodies such as cigarettes, so we can safely rule the ammo out. Short of going to the USA to study Wasp's records, I don't know where else to look - and the one(?) person who has done that didn't find anything. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's a reasonable implication if you've nothing else to go on. I don't see any problem either, but that doesn't mean it was done. Occam's Razor: go with the simplest explanation that meets all the facts. But do we have all the facts?

As long as people keep raising the same points, which have not been settled, then I guess we'll keep on discussing them! At least until we retreat into hermitage or hospice. Not everyone read the old postings, or are otherwise familiar with the ins and outs of the arguments. Given that there are plenty of other myths (cannon Sea Hurricane on Pedestal?) that have been discounted yet keep on appearing, I don't think this one will go away in a hurry even if fresh documentation is found. Not until we find some way to edit all the old books......

[gingerbob]

If I have one negative comment about the book, it is with the location of the superb color profiles. I would have liked to have seen them on a separate page and not cluttered up by photos and text as it currently provides. I think it detracts from the quality of the artists work.

I have NOT received a copy yet, so keep that in mind, but I have a contrasting opinion on this point, Mark.

I can understand your perspective, but for me profiles are (almost) just a further tool for interpretation and understanding. (Yes, I do sometimes enjoy simply looking at one- or a lineup- as "colorized" inspiration for potential subjects, but I hardly ever choose to do a subject just because of a profile.) Consequently, I think it is great to have the profile of a given subject in the same spread as the discussion and photos. Wojtek Matusiak was perhaps the first I encountered to take this approach, and while it can make the pages a bit "busy", I love being able to compare the picture to the profile, and sometimes that even prompts me to notice something in the photo, whereas off by itself (or with others of its kind) it is just "art", and I don't buy history books for art.

bob

[Mark Proulx]

Bob:

Yes, I do agree the profiles are an additional tool. Having said that, I would like to see the profiles on the page opposite the applicable photos and text as a stand alone profile (recognizing that this would impact the page count).

I appreciate that you don't buy history books for the art within, profile work is an important factor to some. That is why it is used in so many books. It provides color and additional reference to the black and white images.

I do repeat my original comment that the book is very well done and I would gladly recommend it to anyone wishing to study Malta Spitfires. My small critique is minor in nature and based only on my opinion. I respect that others may disagree. I don't want my comments to detract from Brian's efforts or that of the publisher. I am sure that they knew of the Pandora's Box they would open and I commend them for putting the effort into the study.

Mark Proulx

[gingerbob]

My small critique is minor in nature and based only on my opinion. I respect that others may disagree.

And likewise, as I hope you understood. I nearly added that I appreciated the objectivity of your critique- perhaps I should have left it in. I have no doubt that profiles help to sell the book (or, less cynically, appeal to many users of the book), it is just that while some reviewers (or purchasers) might say, "and it's got 20 pages of lovely profiles!" I think, "Well, subtracting the 20 pages of profiles, is it still worth it?" That's why the "all on the same page" (or next-to, as you say) approach works for me, because it makes the profile contribute something more than just "bling".

Again, that's just MY personal opinion, and you (the universal you) are welcome to have a different one. I AM looking forward to digesting this book, even if it only provokes questions and thought, rather than provides answers. And I completely agree with you that his and their courage is to be applauded!

bob

[Edgar]

Malta asked for future deliveries to be "sea camouflaged," on April 7th., 1942, only 7 days before the first consignment of Spitfires was loaded on Wasp. This brings a whole host of questions, foremost of which could be, what did they mean by "sea camouflage?"
We (or rather I) have always thought that meant Temperate Sea Scheme, largely due to the photos of Park's Spitfire, but Malta had, in 1935, devised their own "sea camouflage" for the top surfaces of flying boats, matched to the surrounding sea (for most of the year,) and a surviving sample, in Kew, is a close match to Dark Mediterranean Blue. If (big "if") Malta meant their own "sea camouflage," could that have meant the DMB, and was there insufficient time to repaint 50 aircraft, so the paint was just sent with them?
So far, I've found the orders for "Oppidan/Bowery," which go into details of cannon (4) to be carried, with 2 loaded with 60 rounds each; Malta had said that they had enough .303" Brownings already. Sufficient extra ammunition was also to be supplied to allow for air firing tests at Renfrew.
Detailed "Calendar" orders haven't surfaced yet, so I've no idea if paint gets a mention; in the "Bowery" orders, departments were charged with ensuring supply of 100 octane fuel, spares (including "as before" a small parcel to be carried in each aircraft,) oil and coolant, so went into quite fine detail.

Edgar

Edgar

[Paramedic]

Being a "buzz" Beurling, Spitfire and Malta "fan"/very interested in.. I really look forward to this one! Seems like one of the better buy´s for a while - thanks for the heads-up!

[Super Aereo]

I have finally received an email from Amazon telling me that my order shipped out on Friday, so I'll probably receiv eth ebook tomorrow or on Wednesday at the latest (hopefully with all its pages).

I also agree that just because we don't have proof positive that paint was embarked on Wasp alongside the Spitfires, this doesn't mean that it wasn't embarked at all but only that we haven't found any records of it so far (and as far as I know Edgar is the only person who has actually tried to locate such records).

I am certainly looking forward to reading the book cover to cover as soon as Royal Mail delivers it to me...

[Test Graham]

Edgar found the key cable and relevant documentation re the camouflage of these aircraft in UK records, but from comments made some years ago, I don't think that he's the only one to have tried. Christopher Shores has clearly used many of the relevant files for his history of these operations as included in "Malta The Spitfire Year". Edgar's perseverance certainly paid off to our benefit. However Ron Smith (I hope I've got his name right) in the USA, an experienced USN researcher, has looked amongst Wasp's records and states that there is no record of any paint being taken aboard. Hence my comments in posting 34.

[tonyot]

For what it is worth, for my forthcoming book about Malta I interviewed an RAF radio mechanic who was aboard USS Wasp for both Malta missions and he told me that he doubted whether the Spitfire`s would have been repainted on board because the hangars were spotless and he doubted whether the captain would allow it!!! After I mentioned that some painting must have taken place he did concede that he didn`t see much of the Spits once he they were at sea because he was busy working in his workshop!!

He did however state that he was present when the Spitfires were flown in ready to go to the King V docks and they came in with Dark Earth and Dark Green camo and were then wheeled into a small hangar where `desert yellow' (Mid Stone?) was applied over the green areas. I did ask what colour the undersides were but he wasn`t sure, however when I showed him models with Sky, Azure Blue and Sky Blue undersides respectively he chose the Sky Blue one as the most likely, which was great as that was the colour that I`d thought they would be.

I have interviewed quite a few other veterans and although the pilots don`t seem to remember much where colours are concerned the ground crews are normally much better and with the help of a number of models painted in various `possible' colours I`ve been able to find out some interesting info! Another RAF man who was aboard USS Wasp was involved with the painting of the Spits and he gave me some great info,.....but I`d rather not say what it was yet,..sorry!

All the best

Tony O

Edited April 22, 2013 by tonyot

[Super Aereo]

I am familiar with the notion of no records existing of any paint being taken aboard, however we are still discussing second-hand or third-hand information, since we have not seen any copies or reproductions of such records ourselves and we simply don't know how detailed the reports were when British materials (and materials that were to be expended, in the hypotetical case of paint) were concerned, rather than USN stores which would undoubtably been recorded in full detail.

Hence my being a doubting Thomas: IMHO the case for USN deck paint isn't necessarily stronger than the one for EDSG, not until we have to rely on hearsay.

[Test Graham]

The photos of Spitfires being loaded onto Wasp show a very high contrast, which suggests desert rather than DG/DE, particularly given the colour around the cockpit. Brian also quotes a ground crew source as repainting these aircraft into Desert having been done at Glasgow (Abbotsinch?) before loading. Which appears to have been an odd decision: Malta had been accepting Hurricanes in TLS for nearly two years, and there's no way DE/MS can be described as a maritime scheme.

As for Sky Blue, in his autobiography Jack Rae states that as loaded the Spitfires were painted in "a pale blue camouflage slightly lighter in shade than we had been used to in the UK", which backs up Sky Blue - or possibly Azure Blue. He would have been used to Medium Sea Grey at this stage, or perhaps Sky. Ted Hooton stated that Supermarine-built desert camouflage aircraft had Sky Blue undersides (as opposed to CB aircraft with Azure Blue). Despite mentioning this past point this Brian' profiles show them in Sky - I don't think he's right there.

There are four problems with Sky Blue. One is that despite several claims of its use from various theatres, instructions to use it don't seem to be around. Another is that it is lighter than Sky, yet supposedly Sky had been rejected by ME Command because it was too light. The third point is that Azure Blue was around, and definitely official. Finally, there is the probability (near certainty?) that a non-specialist would call any light blue "sky blue" as a generic term.

My point about records was simply to point out that Edgar was not alone and that other reputable historians had been looking into these records. I said above that what went into Wasp's records may not reflect what was loaded for the Spitfires, but negative reports have to be accepted as such. Surely a positive one would have been! I would rule out Deck Blue on the grounds of inappropriate paint, which would show signs of peeling that is not visible on Malta, even on Weaver's aircraft where the scheme is several months at the time. Brian has something to suggest on this one, as well....

[Nick Millman]

Graham

I concur with your comments on the use of Sky Blue and about the possibility of Sky Blue, Azure and even Sky all being referred to colloquially as 'sky blue'. But to insert another spanner in the works...

In assessing the diffuse reflectivity characteristics of the various MAP paint colours I have relied on the values cited in Camouflage and Surface Finish of Aircraft, an unpublished MAP Scientific War Record document compiled by G Palmer of the RAE in 1947 and which Geoff Thomas used for his cited values . The diffuse reflectivity for each colour is given as a percentage value with the higher the value the more reflective - or brighter - the colour. Generally brightness translates to lightness and in Munsell terms is the central value on a scale of 1 (for black) to 10 (for white). Mr Palmer gave the diffuse reflectivity of the relevant colours as follows:-

Sky 43%

Sky Grey 43%

Sky Blue 52%

So far, all well and good. Sky Blue appears to be lighter and brighter than Sky as the MAP colour swatches suggest. But then I was able to examine a report on Matte (sic) camouflage paints for fighters prepared by the staff of the Chemistry Division of the RAE in May 1942 (courtesy of Edgar). This report No. Ch.331 (MAP ref S.47433/R.D.Mat/1 and RAE ref Mat./Ch./500.A/R/JER/11) includes a table indicating the relationship between the matteness (sic) and roughness of several MAP colours then in use but also includes measurements of diffuse reflectivity which differ from the 1947. Sky is given as 52%...

That may well reflect (!) the lighter and brighter appearance of the colour in service use where fading and chalking come into play and which is partially evidenced by the very whiteish or cream appearance of Sky in some colour photographs.

Nick

Edited April 22, 2013 by Nick Millman

[John]

<snip>

There are four problems with Sky Blue. One is that despite several claims of its use from various theatres, instructions to use it don't seem to be around. Another is that it is lighter than Sky, yet supposedly Sky had been rejected by ME Command because it was too light. The third point is that Azure Blue was around, and definitely official. Finally, there is the probability (near certainty?) that a non-specialist would call any light blue "sky blue" as a generic term.

<snip>

But, as I think I've said before, the non-specialist would not call Sky Blue a sky blue but they might call Azure Blue a sky blue, especially if they didn't know that this particular sky blue was actually called Azure Blue and they hadn't come across it before. In fact, in Scotland in April and on the underside of a Spitfire out of direct sunlight Sky Blue would probably look like a pale grey.

John

Edited to add the thought that, since it *is* April in Scotland I'll bring my RAFM chip sheet into work tomorrow and carry out a colloquialism test on my colleagues. Be interesting to hear what the art teacher says...

John