Hurricane in Light Earth and Light Green - Is this possible?

[Basilisk]

In this post on roundel colours http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234964355-early-hurricane-roundels-bright-or-dull-redblue-roundels/page-2 Troy posted an interesting picture of two Hurricanes.

By the way, one thing struck me as odd when seeing this picture posted by Troy (this was maybe covered previously).

Quote

The brown colour on the Hurricanes is noticeable lighter than the brown on the transport plane in the background. The brown on the transport aircraft looks like Dark Earth, but the brown on the Hurricane looks like Light Earth (compared to the colour chips in British Aviation Colours of WW2). And the same is the case with the green. Could these two Hurricanes been painted in Light Earth and Green normally used for biplanes? Hey, everything could be possible

Cheers, Peter

Some of the responses:

Anything is possible, but some things are less likely.

More likely is the transport [a Harrow?] is in non standard colours. Or is it French? Got to go, no time to check the original thread.

Same result to me if you compare color photos of heavy bombers but I was told it cannot be cause it cannot be ...

There are photos in Freeman's RAF of WW two in color that show Oxfords and Ansons for example had the significantly darker colors too ...

And there's a classic case of a modeller thinking like a modeller (and that is not meant to be as rude as it sounds); there is no evidence that those aircraft have just been painted, so it needs a little lateral thinking.
With the passage of (not very much) time, aircraft paints faded and "chalked," and fighters, flying higher than transports, got more ravages from harsh sunlight and freezing temperatures.
Think more of the conditions in which they were flown, and how hard they were worked, and the reason for "non-standard" paint will become more apparent.
Edgar

If the picture would be of some French Spitfire Mk.IX in Vietnam from 1948, I would fully agree with your comment, but these two Hurricanes look newly delivered to me as I can't see any ware and tear on them. Maybe Troy knows more about the picture.

But are the colours on the transport plane really too dark?

Lets for now stick with the light earth and green possibility on the Hurricane. Here is a picture of the colour clips in "British Aviation Colours of WW2". I don't know how accurate these clips are, but it is all I have for a comparison.

And here we have these colours overexposed on Troy's picture:

This comparison is certainly not perfect and old colour images are far from reliable. But the fact is that on this picture there is a large difference in tone of the earth and green between the Hurricanes and transport aircraft - even more so as on the colour clips.

I just can't see that the paint on the Hurricanes faded so evenly, also keeping in mind that two different paints are used on the Hurricane (for fabric and metal surfaces) and many period picture show that these paints fade differently - but not here.

If these two Hurricanes are Gloster built, could it be that Gloster used up some old stock of Light Earth and Green they had left from Gladiator production?

As a modeller, I think we do take colour accuracy sometimes too far as there is variation from batch to batch and from manufacturer to manufacturer, but I don't think it is this much as on above picture.

Cheers, Peter

[gingerbob]

Another factor is (or rather might be) that the Hurris are pretty much side-on to the light, while the Ensign is at a much flatter angle to it. Look at the brown on the wing leading edge of the nearest Hurri, compared to the brown of its fuselage.

bob

[Basilisk]

You are correct, but the brown on the top of the wing on the Ensign is in full sunlight and is as dark as the rest of the aircraft.

Cheers, Peter

[Work In Progress]

To answer your original question, and the obvious follow-up.

1. It is possible, because someone somewhere might possibly have been stupid enough to do something wrong and against orders, for no good military reason, and with no reliable records of it having been done

2. It is however so unlikely as to be not worth considering

[ludwig113]

its just very sunny, look at the shadows on the ground. look at the rudders which are reflecting more light, they are lighter!

[occa]

Don't hold your breath OP, they will tell you it's not possible cause it cannot be against all senses.

[Edgar]

The sunlight is being reflected directly back from the Hurricanes' vertical surfaces; from the Ensign, it is not, infact it's being directed away, and "scattered" by the rough surface of the matt paint.

You also need to consider WIP's point; having been ordered, by the Air Ministry, to use particular shades of paint (designed to keep airframes and personnel alive,) would Hawker's personnel have given them the "two-fingers," and would the Ministry-appointed Resident Technical Officer turned a blind eye, and let them get on with it?

Time after time, I have to exhort modellers to stop thinking like modellers, and think like people involved in a life-or-death struggle.

[occa]

In this cut the comparison is better, both Hurricanes and the tail of the Ensign have similar lighting conditions.

The AC on the right even shows both shades of brown in front of the cockpit.

Photo is from here:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/60896-601-sqdn-hurricanes-markings/

Edited July 20, 2014 by occa

[georgeusa]

If I may, a possible compromise. Peter, if you like the colors of the Hurricanes portrayed in the picture, what would be the harm in doing kits in those colors as a diorama and titling it "Hurricanes Basking in the Sun". With the photo as a reference, you are only portraying the wonderful effects that light can play on standard paint finishes as it appears in the photo. Best of both worlds.

[Basilisk]

Time after time, I have to exhort modellers to stop thinking like modellers, and think like people involved in a life-or-death struggle.

Thinking like people may explane why something is the way it is, but as a modeller, I am looking for evidence to replicate on my model, which is why we talk about the issue here. I would have thought that using slightly lighter tones in the camouflage pattern has no effect in the life-or-death struggle.

But maybe it is just the difference of matt paint and angle of the light.

Cheers, Peter

[occa]

No they don't! They are at completely different angles of illumination. Besides their original paint was unlikely to have been identical anyway. Different aircraft from different manufacturers painted at different times. Once again paint colour standards are being conflated with applied paint. I remember another argument about this same image as to whether the Hurricane cowling and tail undersurface was Sky, white or aluminium! FWIW it looks like Sky to me and Night on the Hurri in the background.

The paint on the cowling top (the green too if you look closely) has possibly been darkened by heat. It's a fuzzy distant image anyway - is the 'light DE paint' beneath the 'dark DE paint' just paint or paint with exhaust residue over it?

Look, if you want to paint your Hurricane model with Light Green and Light Earth no-one is going to stop you!

Nick

The other two Hurricanes from the same scene only show a slight exhaust streak but not the uniform darker panel of the third on the right.

There's a clear difference.

Why don't you use your screen analyzing program to determine differences as you normally do?

Btw is there a site where I can download that scene the stills are taken from?

Or at least view it?

Edited July 20, 2014 by occa

[Work In Progress]

If the Hurricanes are substantially different colours from the Ensign (and I'm still of the opinion that lighting is a satisfactory explanation for the apparent difference) it still doesn't follow that the Hurricanes are Light Green and Light Earth. In fact if the colours are genuinely different it is explainable in far more likely ways.

First is wear and tear and exposure to high altutude UV. The Ensign being an unpressurised airliner with no passenegr oxygen systems would not normally have been flown over 12,000 feet, even pre-war.

Second is the question of the Ensign colour scheme. Sure it is supposed to be DE/DG, But we know that the Hurricanes were factory-painted in camouflage. We also know that the Ensign in the pic is not in factory paint, but has been camouflaged somewhere else, having been impressed from Imperial Airways service into operation for National Air Communications. Under those circumstances, though I consider it most likely that the Ensign was on the balance of probabilities painted with officially compliant DE/DG paint stock, it is the Ensign rather than the Hurricanes that is more likely to have been painted with whatever could be found in a hurry.

We can also say with certainty that the Ensign was painted by different people at a different time using different equipment from those involved in painting the Hurricanes, and we all know from personal experience that differences in painting technique and environmental conditions when paint is being applied can lead to very different impressions, especially where surface texture affects perception of colour.

Third,I would not put it past the Ensign operation to have polished the aeroplane, especially if its ground crew came with it from Imperial Airways.That would darken it significantly.

I am not making specific claims or probability factors for 2 and 3, just pointing out there are many possible reasons why you may see a difference, of which the Hurris being in Light Green and Light Earth is one of the more remote possibilities.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Work In Progress

[Basilisk]

Photo is from here:

http://www.britmodel...canes-markings/

Occa, thanks for posting the link to more of this Hurricane pictures.

If I may, a possible compromise. Peter, if you like the colors of the Hurricanes portrayed in the picture, what would be the harm in doing kits in those colors as a diorama and titling it "Hurricanes Basking in the Sun". With the photo as a reference, you are only portraying the wonderful effects that light can play on standard paint finishes as it appears in the photo. Best of both worlds.

Not a bad idea.

But seeing the picture below in the 601Sqdn post, I have second thoughts.

The brown colour on the Hurricane's wing leading edge (around the white A) is roughly at the same angle as the fuselage of the Ensign in the background and the tone of the brown is more or less the same too!

So maybe it is indeed just the lighting conditions creating this variations.

Cheers, Peter

[Basilisk]

If the Hurricanes are substantially different colours from the Ensign (and I'm still of the opinion that lighting is a satisfactory explanation for the apparent difference) it still doesn't follow that the Hurricanes are Light Green and Light Earth. In fact if the colours are genuinely different it is explainable in far more likely ways.

First is wear and tear and exposure to high altutude UV. The Ensign being an unpressurised airliner with no passenegr oxygen systems would not normally have been flown over 12,000 feet, even pre-war.

Second is the question of the Ensign colour scheme. Sure it is supposed to be DE/DG, But we know that the Hurricanes were factory-painted in camouflage. We also know that the Ensign in the pic is not in factory paint, but has been camouflaged somewhere else, having been impressed from Imperial Airways service into operation for National Air Communications. Under those circumstances, though I consider it most likely that the Ensign was on the balance of probabilities painted with officially compliant DE/DG paint stock, it is the Ensign rather than the Hurricanes that is more likely to have been painted with whatever could be found in a hurry.

We can also say with certainty that the Ensign was painted by different people at a different time using different equipment from those involved in painting the Hurricanes, and we all know from personal experience that differences in painting technique and environmental conditions when paint is being applied can lead to very different impressions, especially where surface texture affects perception of colour.

Third,I would not put it past the Ensign operation to have polished the aeroplane, especially if its ground crew came with it from Imperial Airways.That would darken it significantly.

I am not making specific claims or probability factors for 2 and 3, just pointing out there are many possible reasons why you may see a difference, of which the Hurris being in Light Green and Light Earth is one of the more remote possibilities.

Some plausible explanations too. Thanks.

Cheers, Peter

[brewerjerry]

....,,,,, would the Ministry-appointed Resident Technical Officer turned a blind eye, and let them get on with it?

......,.

Hi

I worked with one once, many many years ago.

his quote was, something like ..

'you cant be everywhere at once, to check everything and everyone, there was only one of me'

cheers

jerry

[Graham Boak]

Can I point out that the darker brown on the top of one Hurricane cannot have been darkened by heat from the engine because it is over the petrol tank, not the engine. Also, this darker area is not visible in the original copy in the first posting, where this area shows the same light appearance as the rest of the camouflage. The same is true of the second posting: the dark area appears to have been an artefact of the "fiddling" done to create the later postings.

Something tells me that several people might have noticed that one batch of Hurricanes were a lot lighter than others, and drawn this to the RTO's attention. It would also have been noticed at the MUs.

[occa]

Heat is conducted through the metal of the airframe, rises and doesn't just stop where the engine does! In this photo a somewhat similar demarcation can be seen which to be fair is probably due mainly to the exhaust effluent. The pic shows Howard Cook flying near Valleta, Malta during Merlins Over Malta and comes from Vintage Wings of Canada. It makes an interesting comparison to the wartime images.

Nick

But that same panel is not darker like with the third Hurricane on the right on the pic I re-posted from the older thread.

The AC in your picture only displays a similar virtual demarcation line from the exhaust stains like with the two on the first photo on this thread.

Edited July 20, 2014 by occa

[occa]

It is darker. I'll spare you the maths.

Nick

Always be defiant lol

[occa]

It is darker. I'll spare you the maths.

Nick

It is not darker, even a tiny tad lighter partly, depends on what area you look.

The difference on the photo I posted is by far bigger.

Edited July 21, 2014 by occa

[Black Knight]

Without knowing the scource of the photos, when and where taken, and why, all things are conjecture.

The Hurricanes look fresh, there appear to be neither squadron codes, nor airframe numbers on them. If they had just come from Gloster/Hawker they'd have airframe numbers at least.

I venture to suggest these are at an M.U. being repainted after battle damage repairs. I believe they do show a lighter version of the normal colours but this is because the airframe has been cleaned down ready for the repaint.

[John Aero]

For the record there are two differing a/c in the background, an Ensign and a Bombay.

John

[Edgar]

It escapes me tho why you have it necessary to be such a hard head whenever I try to bring up my something into colour discussions you obviously don't like or for whatever veiled reasons.

And it escapes me why some modellers get so bad-tempered, when researchers wish to disagree with their point of view, after all how you/they paint models is entirely up to you/them, and nobody in this thread is dictating terms, but simply differing in their views.

Today, a friend sent an illustration of a Spitfire, that he'd done, in all-over Sea Grey Medium and Dark Green; when I protested, he said that he'd done it from a colour photo that a very respected Polish author had sent. As luck would have it, I found the identical photo, in one of the books of Charles Brown's photos, in which the aircraft is clearly in Day Fighter Scheme of Ocean Grey/Green/MSG.

When he sent a copy of his, it became clear that it was a poor reprint.

Look at the two photos below, obviously from the same slide or negative, but each taken from a different book:-

In the same way that you ask for the freedom to do your models as you see fit, please have the courtesy not to ask researchers to rewrite history unless, and until, they/we/I find reputable evidence that it really happened.

Edgar

[occa]

Even with the bad reprint of the above photo I would never have painted a model withe colors you mentioned.

Actually I have the better version as I own the book, and I would have painted it LE LG as the colors again appear too light there to be DG(De earth for my taste.

And I never asked to rewrite history, I just have the impossible expectation that things are discussed in an open way.without twist, spin and manipulative exaggeration and without trying to talk me into 'move on there's nothing extra-ordinary to see' on the photos that I bring up.

Edited July 21, 2014 by occa

[georgeusa]

Paint, the modeler's way of taking a perfectly good kit and mucking it up. I have been thinking (always a dangerous proposition!) about paint and airbrushing in general. If you look at the many and various posts on this thread, there a quite a lot of them devoted to problems with paint application and how to fix it. Now these problems vary from bad paint, too much thinner, too little thinner, too much humidity, equipment malfunctions, chemical reactions . . .

So here is what I am pondering given the above. You are in a war time situation; your paint crews have been recruited from people with little or no knowledge of painting. Why is it never considered that a particular aircraft, that has a very odd paint job, that is a bit non-standard, isn't just the work of bad airbrushing by the paint crew? If we do it on our little models of aircraft, why is it such a stretch to think paint jobs didn't get messed up at either the factory, maintenance or aerodrome locations? I know it happens occasionally with automobiles as I have seen cars less than a year old with bad factory paint jobs that are splotchy, unevenly faded and/or peeling. (And, with very unhappy owners who are requesting I sue the dealer and manufacturer that sold them their lemon!!)

So, if GM, Honda, Toyota, Chevrolet, etc. with trained, professional painting crews, can mess up on a paint job, why is it beyond consideration, untrained or semi-trained war time labor would never mess up? I really don’t think this conversation took place:

“Now I know it was Reginald’s first day on the paint line, and I know the boys need this Spitfire as we are in the middle of the Battle of Britain, but this just won’t do as the shades are just wrong. So let’s take this perfectly air worthy aircraft with a slightly off paint job and run it back through the line and get it right!!”

Did war time paint suppliers create an idiot proof system of spray painting paint? If so, could they miniaturize it so I can be done with my airbrush woes? Please.

[Andrew Jones]

It always amuses me that during these colour discussions , modellers can argue so vehmently about colour issues , aventually agree or agree to disagree and possibly reach a conclusion. One modeller will then go back to his model happy in the knowledge that he knows exactly which colour it should be , he then due to the vagaries of his favourite brand of model paint he proceeds to paint his model in totally the wrong shade. But , never mind , he knows he's won his argument and that his model unlike all the others out there is 100% accurate.

I'm with Edgar on this one , its your model so build it as you want it , I think that's what our hobby is about. But please respect the opinions of others even if you don't always agree with them.

Andrew