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

[Edgar]

But can one be sure that it was restricted to one aircraft - the letter only mentions one aircraft at a specific location. It doesn't say that this example is unique amongst all Wellesleys.

Since it says "a" Wellesley, not "another," or "yet another," I have to go along with the evidence that it was a singleton; others may not feel constrained by such niceties, of course.

[MilneBay]

That's probably the case. But my question was, what, if by some chance such an error in painting were to occur, would happen under wartime conditions. If they were later prepared to put pilots with only just more than single hours training time in their logbooks into combat, would they spend all that time stripping & repainting some wrongly coloured aeroplanes. Just if such a case might have happened, of course....

However that is making the assumption that they were wrongly painted. It may well be that they were painted correctly either because a different tone was specified or that the batch control of the paint did not pick up the different tone. The point at the moment, or the salient question is that we don't know.

[MilneBay]

Since it says "a" Wellesley, not "another," or "yet another," I have to go along with the evidence that it was a singleton; others may not feel constrained by such niceties, of course.

Why should it say "another" or "yet another" - maybe it was the sole example present which caught the observer's eye and that single one drew attention to the matter. If I can quote myself "the salient question is that we don't know" .

[Edgar]

But just say, just for a minute & only for 'discussions' sake that there was a mistake (we all make them) in the paint shop & for whatever reason a number of Hurricanes were outshopped in light earth/light green. And it was only then as they sat in the sun outside that the man from the ministry (& probably the horrified company bod accompanying him) spotted them.

To have reached that stage, chargehands, foremen, plus the RTO, would have failed to notice that anything was wrong on the fuselage line, the wings line, and in the sewing shop (rudders and ailerons had to be painted, and balanced, before being fitted to the finished airframe.) Aircraft were not normally assembled, then painted, they were painted, then assembled.

Would he, given said wartime conditions, have said 'oh dear, someones made a right pigs ear of following regs there, but never mind the squadrons are desperate for replacement aircraft, don't do it again, send them on their way' & signed the paperwork off with whatever endorsements & recommendations needed on it to ensure it didn't happen again, or would he have said 'oh dear, someones made a right pigs ear of following regs there, but never mind that the squadrons are desperate for replacement aircraft, get them back in the paintshop & do it right'!

He would have approached the Local Technical Committee (whose word was law,) appraised them of the situation, and asked for guidance; if he'd done as he pleased, he would have probably spent the rest of the war carrying a bucket of water and a stirrup-pump, on the lookout for incendiaries. Also, even in the hardest times of 1940, there was never a shortage of Hurricanes.

I really am just curious as to what might happen should such a production problem actually occur under wartime conditions.

Going by stories from sprayers, who were there, they would have done the job, again and again, until the foreman (whose job would also have been on the line) was satisfied. Today's (fairly) relaxed work attitudes didn't exist, 70 years ago, and I speak as someone who, struggling 3 months after a life-saving operation, was sacked, at a day's notice, to make room for the boss's nephew.

[keefr22]

However that is making the assumption that they were wrongly painted. It may well be that they were painted correctly either because a different tone was specified or that the batch control of the paint did not pick up the different tone. The point at the moment, or the salient question is that we don't know.

Sorry, I wasn't specifically talking about the two in the picture, it's more a 'what if' one, or a number of, Hurricanes Or Spitfires or Wellesleys or whatever, were to have been incorrectly painted, what would the procedure have been under 'wartime conditions'? Would they be released for service, or would they actually have wasted (in my opinion) the time taken to refinish them....?

Edit - Edgar has responded to my original question with another of his helpful posts whilst I was typing, so now I know! Thank you Edgar.

Keith

[Edgar]

If I can quote myself "the salient question is that we don't know" .

And, in my case, at least, "don't know" does not give carte-blanche to guess. A salient quote might be "One swallow does not make a summer."

It really is a head-scratcher, to me, that (some) modellers want some sort of endorsement to paint their models in non-standard schemes. If there's no cast-iron evidence, then don't expect that endorsement, but, by the same token, you won't find me, or Nick, or any other researcher, saying that you can't paint your model as you please, we leave that to the "expert" modellers.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Edgar

[Mitch K]

A couple of observations, having followed this with interest.

This topic is getting into the area of a wider question: what do we do when modelling when we are not absolutely 100% certain what the historic reality was. In my Bf-109 build, I haven't been able to locate a single photo of the starboard fuselage side. What should I do regarding the random, field applied mottle? Can I even assume that there WAS mottling on that side? In this case, given that the rest of the plane shows mottling, the principle that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be applied fairly safely, but what pattern was used? There are many cases where we do NOT know, and to be frank we will NEVER know. Do we exclude from our modelling project everything we cannot 100% back with full evidence?

Second, regarding documentary evidence. I have worked in government departments, and I currently spend my time carrying out work that is governed by a highly proscriptive, legally enforced set of internationally agreed rules and guidelines. Documentary evidence is a cornerstone of this work, to the extent that the accepted version of a document is only ever a "wet ink" signed version. So far, so good. A significant part of time is spent further hand-annotating already hand-annotated documents with a series of ever-more convoluted versions of a statement something like the following:

Document: "Procuct comprises brownish-grey granules"

First hand annotation by field staff: "Product is grey-ish brown granules"

My second annotation: "Upon examination it was found that in practice the test item was in fact a grey-ish brown colour rather than a brownish grey. Whilst overservable to the naked eye, this difference had no impact on the outcome or integrity of the study".

How many documents that never reached archives are there that are like this, signed off by station commanders, unit commanders etc, where only the top copy was signed and sent on, and any others (carbons etc) did not receive the annotation? I know it still happens, and in terms of reconsructing a paper trail it can be a nightmare.

I certainly would not say that this gives carte blanche for anyone to turn around and say that documentary evidence is worthless. I am a strong enthusiast for documents and feel a certain reassurance knowing that what I do is based on them. However, to say because a document says something was done/was intended to be done a certain way most certainly does NOT mean there were never documented deviations that did not reach the archives. That is the case even in peacetime!

[Mitch K]

And, in my case, at least, "don't know" does not give carte-blanche to guess. A salient quote might be "One swallow does not make a summer."

"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". In this case we have NO actual evidence the aircraft was painted in anything other than the intended colours. Other than the photo, there is nothing to support the hypothesis that it was anything other than perfectly normal dark green/dark earth paint job.

[keefr22]

A couple of observations, having followed this with interest.

This topic is getting into the area of a wider question: what do we do when modelling when we are not absolutely 100% certain what the historic reality was. In my Bf-109 build, I haven't been able to locate a single photo of the starboard fuselage side. What should I do regarding the random, field applied mottle? Can I even assume that there WAS mottling on that side? In this case, given that the rest of the plane shows mottling, the principle that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be applied fairly safely, but what pattern was used? There are many cases where we do NOT know, and to be frank we will NEVER know. Do we exclude from our modelling project everything we cannot 100% back with full evidence?

If there is no photograhic or other evidence does it matter? What I do & would suspect most other modellers do in that case is surely just 'best guess' it?! I don't get the idea of excluding 'from our modelling project everything we cannot 100% back with full evidence?' at all to be honest, who would ever get anything built?! As is also so often said, if you can't prove it's right, who can prove it's wrong? And if they can, with firm evidence, then it's either c'est la vie or build another 'correct' model...!!

It's only a model...!!

[Edgar]

Mitch, the problem is that the Squadron commander was at the far end of the chain.

Orders, in the form of Air Ministry Orders, or DTD Technical Circulars, were issued by the Air Ministry directly to LTCs, RTOs, and the manufacturers.

If you haven't seen the collection of wartime AMOs, you haven't lived, since there are at least 1000 per year (that's 3 per day, which go into the finest detail (e.g. on wages to the nearest farthing, how many pairs of knickers should be issued to WAAFs, changing "airscrew" to "propeller," going from mph to knots, using "aircraft" instead of "aeroplane," how to dry airmen's boots.)

Trusting underlings to think for themselves didn't compute, years ago, so a factory drawing would have had the colours, and pattern, noted on it, with the "vocabulary no" for each paint notated in a box on the drawing, which is why the chances of a sprayer firstly asking for the wrong colour, and secondly the storekeeper issuing the wrong colour, time after time (usually in 1 gallon tins,) are somewhat remote; if the colours changed, it was normal practice for the drawing to be redrawn, with the new numbers annotated.

Edgar

[Mitch K]

If there is no photograhic or other evidence does it matter? What I do & would suspect most other modellers do in that case is surely just 'best guess' it?! I don't get the idea of excluding 'from our modelling project everything we cannot 100% back with full evidence?' at all to be honest, who would ever get anything built?! As is also so often said, if you can't prove it's right, who can prove it's wrong? And if they can, with firm evidence, then it's either c'est la vie or build another 'correct' model...!!

It's only a model...!!

Absolutely! What I'm getting at is that there's an element of value judgement here. For some people, this is vitally important - a deal-breaker, if you like, whilst to others, it's much less so. If I can back up my work with a good pile of evidence, well and good, but I am happy to take a calculated risk in the gaps. To others, this is a jump too far.

[Giorgio N]

The Phantoms mentioned above were the result of a bad batch of FS 30219 that after little time lost its brown component leaving the aircrafts in a 3-green scheme. The USAF immediately started repainting the aircrafts with the proper tan as soon as the problem became evident but aircrafts in the meantime carried this unusual scheme.

A similar case was shown on a number of Israeli F-16 a few years ago.

In both cases, the aircrafts had been repainted, they had not left the factory in anything else than the correct standard colours. In the case of the Phantom it's important to mention that the aircrafts initially looked right, the variation occurred after a certain time.

I'm always quite skeptical of attempts to imply the use of unusual colours from wartime colour pictures: the colours in such pictures can be subject to so many variations that it's hard to be 100% sure of the colour. I still personally find them extremely valuable but prefer to use them in conjuction with the specified standards

There are then the issues of variations between different batches of the same paint, variations due to the application process of the paint and of course variations due to ageing and dirt. In any case where what looks like an unusual colour appear, I'd always think of a variation of the standard colour first rather than jump onto a colour not normally associated with the type.

This especially if we're talking of new aircrafts painted in factory schemes ! Edgar has pointed out very well how the production system was designed to work. Errors may have happened in a small number of cases, but it's quite unlikely that Hawker would have sent out aircrafts painted in a colour different from what it was supposed to be. Does it mean all aircrafts had exactly the same shade of Dark Earth ? Absolutely not, but they would have all been in shades falling within set tolerances.

Aircrafts repainted at MU or similar level may well be a different story, but in this case I'd wonder why should an MU have in stock these unusual colours. It would be way more likely for an MU to have plenty of stocks of the most used colours rather than of other less frequently used paints.

Of course aircrafts serving in remote areas with difficulties in replenishments may be a different story, but these are exceptions, usually well known and discussed.

[Mitch K]

Mitch, the problem is that the Squadron commander was at the far end of the chain.

Orders, in the form of Air Ministry Orders, or DTD Technical Circulars, were issued by the Air Ministry directly to LTCs, RTOs, and the manufacturers.

If you haven't seen the collection of wartime AMOs, you haven't lived, since there are at least 1000 per year (that's 3 per day, which go into the finest detail (e.g. on wages to the nearest farthing, how many pairs of knickers should be issued to WAAFs, changing "airscrew" to "propeller," going from mph to knots, using "aircraft" instead of "aeroplane," how to dry airmen's boots.)

Trusting underlings to think for themselves didn't compute, years ago, so a factory drawing would have had the colours, and pattern, noted on it, with the "vocabulary no" for each paint notated in a box on the drawing, which is why the chances of a sprayer firstly asking for the wrong colour, and secondly the storekeeper issuing the wrong colour, time after time (usually in 1 gallon tins,) are somewhat remote; if the colours changed, it was normal practice for the drawing to be redrawn, with the new numbers annotated.

Edgar

Edgar, I don't doubt this for one single second. I am painfully aware of the convolution of technical specs and how detailed they are, and how unlikely it is that problems don't get spotted. That's why in this case I think it is most unlikely that the Hurricane in question is in anything other than bog-standard colours.

However, the other side of this particular coin is that where you have proscriptive regs with multiple stages of issue, where deviations occur they DO get noted. If there are problems/issues, records are made of them, the impact is assessed and recorded and a course of action agreed and documented. My experience is that these sort of documents, which are just as "official" are the ones that are less likely to make it to archive. An observation, based on a lifetime of paperwork!

[Nick Millman]

The Phantoms mentioned above were the result of a bad batch of FS 30219 that after little time lost its brown component leaving the aircrafts in a 3-green scheme. The USAF immediately started repainting the aircrafts with the proper tan as soon as the problem became evident but aircrafts in the meantime carried this unusual scheme.

A similar case was shown on a number of Israeli F-16 a few years ago.

In both cases, the aircrafts had been repainted, they had not left the factory in anything else than the correct standard colours. In the case of the Phantom it's important to mention that the aircrafts initially looked right, the variation occurred after a certain time.

That is interesting. Do you know the details of the pigments used in the errant paint? FS 30219 (standard) is created with Rutile Titanium Dioxide (white), Molybdate Orange (Red Shade), Chrome Yellow Med. (Red Shade) and Carbon Black (Blue Shade). Gettens and Stout (1966) noted that when Chrome Yellow is mixed with organic pigments it produces chromium oxide which causes the pigment to become green.

"If one or more pigments fade at different rates, the result can be an actual hue, or color, shift. In one striking example, a stable “salsa red”-colored coating was reformulated with new, environmentally friendly pigments—inorganic carbon black and titanium dioxide— to provide a lightness level, and a mix of organic red, blue, and yellow pigments to provide the burgundy tint. On sunlight exposure, the red pigment quickly faded, resulting in a color shift from red through bronze to green as the red disappeared. The new formulation met the stringent initial color-match spec, but was not adequately tested for environmental durability of color retention." (Journal of Architectural Coatings, March 2006)

Nick

[keefr22]

In both cases, the aircrafts had been repainted, they had not left the factory in anything else than the correct standard colours. In the case of the Phantom it's important to mention that the aircrafts initially looked right, the variation occurred after a certain time.

Thanks Giorgio, I'd always thought I'd read they'd actually been painted that way...(which of course I might have done & whoever wrote it was wrong!!)

[Mitch K]

That is interesting. Do you know the details of the pigments used in the errant paint? FS 30219 (standard) is created with Rutile Titanium Dioxide (white), Molybdate Orange (Red Shade), Chrome Yellow Med. (Red Shade) and Carbon Black (Blue Shade). Gettens and Stout (1966) noted that when Chrome Yellow is mixed with organic pigments it produces chromium oxide which causes the pigment to become green.

"If one or more pigments fade at different rates, the result can be an actual hue, or color, shift. In one striking example, a stable “salsa red”-colored coating was reformulated with new, environmentally friendly pigments—inorganic carbon black and titanium dioxide— to provide a lightness level, and a mix of organic red, blue, and yellow pigments to provide the burgundy tint. On sunlight exposure, the red pigment quickly faded, resulting in a color shift from red through bronze to green as the red disappeared. The new formulation met the stringent initial color-match spec, but was not adequately tested for environmental durability of color retention." (Journal of Architectural Coatings, March 2006)

Nick

The law of unintended consequences strikes again! If I had a fiver for every time I've seen something like this in my line of work, I'd have a stash you'd need a lorry to move!

[keefr22]

"If one or more pigments fade at different rates, the result can be an actual hue, or color, shift. In one striking example, a stable “salsa red”-colored coating was reformulated with new, environmentally friendly pigments—inorganic carbon black and titanium dioxide— to provide a lightness level, and a mix of organic red, blue, and yellow pigments to provide the burgundy tint. On sunlight exposure, the red pigment quickly faded, resulting in a color shift from red through bronze to green as the red disappeared. The new formulation met the stringent initial color-match spec, but was not adequately tested for environmental durability of color retention." (Journal of Architectural Coatings, March 2006)

Nick

Another way OT story in a similar vein occured to me. I once bought a brand new bright red Astra GTE, which when delivered had paint flaws all down one side. The dealer immediately arranged for it to go into his body shop. They resprayed that side excellently with a fantastic paint match in sunlight. However, the first time I came out of work in the dark & went to get the car parked under sodium lights, the repainted side was a completely different tone! It appears that the dealer was by then using new environmentally friendly red paint without lead (IIRC) in it, whilst the factory was still using up its stock of the 'poisonous' stuff!! The dealer than repainted the whole of my car, which was nice, as their paintwork wa actually much better than the factories!

[occa]

I think the Gladiators are part of a set of rare pre WW2 colour pics, on Etienne's Flickr photo stream there are the Hurricane shots, plus a Spitfire and a Battle, and the Gladiators.

granted the blue and red looks bright, but the rest looks good, and note the orange chocks, would that be there is a colourised image?

The chocks under the closest AC are black, one even has the same blue that is on the wheel hubs seemingly over-painted.

I think it is colorized, the underside of the upper port wing shows the same blue even ...

[Steven Eisenman]

Thanks Steven,

That's a very odd feature! In your second photo, note also the tonal difference between the wood part around the hood and the fabric that comes aft of that.

bob

Not odd, one is dope for fabric the other paint for metal.

[Giorgio N]

That is interesting. Do you know the details of the pigments used in the errant paint? FS 30219 (standard) is created with Rutile Titanium Dioxide (white), Molybdate Orange (Red Shade), Chrome Yellow Med. (Red Shade) and Carbon Black (Blue Shade). Gettens and Stout (1966) noted that when Chrome Yellow is mixed with organic pigments it produces chromium oxide which causes the pigment to become green.

"If one or more pigments fade at different rates, the result can be an actual hue, or color, shift. In one striking example, a stable “salsa red”-colored coating was reformulated with new, environmentally friendly pigments—inorganic carbon black and titanium dioxide— to provide a lightness level, and a mix of organic red, blue, and yellow pigments to provide the burgundy tint. On sunlight exposure, the red pigment quickly faded, resulting in a color shift from red through bronze to green as the red disappeared. The new formulation met the stringent initial color-match spec, but was not adequately tested for environmental durability of color retention." (Journal of Architectural Coatings, March 2006)

Nick

Nick, sorry but I would have no idea about the pigments involved. The example you posted is very interesting, I've heard of similar problems in the automotive industry.

Thanks Giorgio, I'd always thought I'd read they'd actually been painted that way...(which of course I might have done & whoever wrote it was wrong!!)

The aircrafts I was mentioning are the "famous" F-4s that appeared around 1975. Some of them were serving with 81st TFW at Lakeneath and Xtradecal feautures one of these in a decal sheet. Mind, there may have been similar problems earlier, but these are the most famous. The ones I've seen in pictures were F-4Ds built around 1967-68, so the aircrafts had definitely been repainted

[Nick Millman]

Nick, sorry but I would have no idea about the pigments involved. The example you posted is very interesting, I've heard of similar problems in the automotive industry.

Also where Chrome Yellow is mixed with Prussian Blue to create Chrome Green (also used in camouflage schemes as a substitute for Chromium Oxide, knowingly or unknowlingly) it decomposes the blue over time, resulting in any mixed green colour shifting towards yellow/brown. A dark blueish green would become more olive in appearance and eventually brown. There was not an adequate appreciation of this during the wartime years because the term 'Chrome Green' is used in official pigmentation documents to describe Chromium Oxide (Green). There was also a world-wide shortage of Chromium Oxide during WW2 which encouraged this substitution.

Nick

[Basilisk]

Boy did I open a can of worms here. But some great stuff got discussed.

Ok, so it was rather unlikely that "light" colour has been used on these two Hurricanes and some of the explanation why things are the way they show on the picture do make sens, even though the tonal difference on this picture is rather large between the two aircraft.

At the end, it is each modellers decision what information to base his model on - but there would be no fun if researching a project is without challenges.

Cheers, Peter

[Mitch K]

There was not an adequate appreciation of this during the wartime years because the term 'Chrome Green' is used in official pigmentation documents to describe Chromium Oxide (Green).

Nick

Indeed. In the field of dyes and stains this sort of problem continues even now. It was only by the efforts of people like HJ Conn between the wars that international standardisation of stains started, in terms of composition and nomenclature. In case anyone thinks this is unimportant compared to camoflage paint, keep in mind that before the explosion of genetically/immunologically based tests about 20 years ago, all laboratory diagnoses of lovely things like malaria, leishmaniasis, typhus and the like were via histological staining. If you used the wrong stain, you'd get a misdiagnosis. And you most definitely do NOT want that.

[Basilisk]

Sorry, one more thing. Edgar, are you sure about this:

To have reached that stage, chargehands, foremen, plus the RTO, would have failed to notice that anything was wrong on the fuselage line, the wings line, and in the sewing shop (rudders and ailerons had to be painted, and balanced, before being fitted to the finished airframe.) Aircraft were not normally assembled, then painted, they were painted, then assembled.

Have a look at the picture Steven posted. The camouflage pattern is aligned perfectly across the control surfaces, so surely the whole wing was painted at the same time.

Cheers, Peter

[AnonymousAA72]

Mitch, the problem is that the Squadron commander was at the far end of the chain.

Orders, in the form of Air Ministry Orders, or DTD Technical Circulars, were issued by the Air Ministry directly to LTCs, RTOs, and the manufacturers.

If you haven't seen the collection of wartime AMOs, you haven't lived, since there are at least 1000 per year (that's 3 per day, which go into the finest detail (e.g. on wages to the nearest farthing, how many pairs of knickers should be issued to WAAFs, changing "airscrew" to "propeller," going from mph to knots, using "aircraft" instead of "aeroplane," how to dry airmen's boots.)

Trusting underlings to think for themselves didn't compute, years ago, so a factory drawing would have had the colours, and pattern, noted on it, with the "vocabulary no" for each paint notated in a box on the drawing, which is why the chances of a sprayer firstly asking for the wrong colour, and secondly the storekeeper issuing the wrong colour, time after time (usually in 1 gallon tins,) are somewhat remote; if the colours changed, it was normal practice for the drawing to be redrawn, with the new numbers annotated.

Edgar

Yet despite this, there were anomalies....I've just been looking at SAM Vol 5 Number 2 (Nov.1982) regarding Spitfire camouflage 1939-40, the article was penned by Ted Hooton, and details the differences in the sizes of fuselage roundels, wing roundels and fin flashes applied either at Factory,MU or Squadron levels. I can't copy all of that here, but there are three pages detailling these differences......Now, if an AMO states the elasticity of a WAAF's knicker elastic, then it would surely state the size of a roundel and its position?

Fighting Colours by Michael J Bowyer details differences in colours painted on aircraft that he witnessed at the time... referring to code letters applied (these should have been Medium Sea Grey). "These letters were applied in a mid-grey paint usually (bearing in mind that the individual's idea of mid-grey can vary a lot, verging on dark grey at Duxford and a pale shade of blue at Kenley!***)"

And regarding underside colours......"Silver was certainly applied to some aircraft, evident on Spitfires in June. Predominant were pale shades of blue, but some Hurricanes that I saw at Debden and Duxford had deep blue under surfaces. These variations were presumably due to the fact that dope was mixed at the stations"

"The confusion of those hectic days was bound to bring anomalies. Letter sizes varied considerably, some fighters having two sizes of codes. Of the many aircraft I saw in 1940 none had other than mid-grey to rather darker grey letters" and so on....

And back to Ted Hooton...."Without exception, all production aircraft had black spinners until 1941-42" I assume that this was due to a directive "from above", on one of these AMO's. Yet why then did R6800/LZ-N of 66 Sqn have a blue spinner, and P9386/QV-K of 19 Sqn have yellow (particularly when that was a favoured colour of Me109 spinners?). Surely these are examples of anomolies, where AMO's weren't followed to the letter, well not immediately anyway.

(and for the record I don't think those Hurricanes are in "Light Earth' and "Light Green")

There is an awful lot of anecdotal evidence that there WERE anomalies. No doubt due to the exceptional circumstances at the time.

Research is more that just reading a piece of paper from the time, and accepting it as being Gospel. There's a human element that needs to be added to the equation. The sum you come up with will vary depending on your own viewpoint and assessment of that situation.

*****Regarding the differences in Medium Sea Grey noted above, as witnessed by Michael Bowyer could this be the source of the variations in locally "Mixed-grey"?