Spitfire cockpit green

[John]

If they chose to advocate it for a cockpit interior, it would seem a fairly clear indication that that is why they chose it (at least it does to me.) That also probably explains why Hornby found that they needed to change the formula to get it to match Sky (and that information came from Trevor Snowden.)

Allow me:- Humbrol No.34 x 160 drops + 101 x 5 + 99 x 4 + 60 x 1.

And anyone with the colour chips, supplied by Humbrol, in the Colour System, can see that 90 was not meant to be a match for Sky, and that is my concern, not what actually ended up in the tin.

I don't doubt for a minute that there's a mix for Sky in the Colour System, but I am a bit puzzled by the weight you seem to be attaching to it. Are there also mixes for Dark Green (in spite of there being a perfectly serviceible 163 or 116 in the range?), Dark Earth (in spite of there being 29 in the range?), Ocean Grey (in spite of 106 being in the range)? If there are, it merely suggests that Humbrol thought they might be able improve on the standard colour range, not that the standard colours weren't perfectly accepatble as they were - for most applications.

Since I don't have a copy of the Colour System I can't comment on the chips in it but I *can* say that, compared to the chips from the RAFM book, all extant examples of Humbrol 90 that I have, going back to the early 1980s are, within what I would consider to be acceptable tolerences, perfecly adequate facimilies of Sky. That being the case, I'm quite content that that's what they were designed to be. The colour has scarecly changed over that period. The formulation has certainly changed, but not the shade.

I would also be a bit worried about any mix for Sky that included Matt Scarlet in it, but maybe that's Nick's territory rather than mine. :-)

John

[Dave Fleming]

1978, according to Richard Humm.

Interesting thread. One observation - the Authentics and main range were not always the same shade. the IAF ones are a case in point, I had tins of each,, and the greens (in spite of being supposedly the same colour) were different, as were the wartime and post war shades of Extra dark Sea grey - at least on my tinlets!

Edited August 7, 2014 by Dave Fleming

[John]

As an aside, it's also worth recalling that Palitoy kept the Airfix paint range going with their original numbers for a least part of their ownership of the brand. The paints were rebadged Humbrol enamels

so Palitoy era instructions are at least as likely to refer to Airfix paint numbers as Humbrol ones.

I have a tube of cement from this era somewhere too.

John:

[Ivor Ramsden]

I'm reluctant to join in this thread because I fear that it might descend into yet another Britmodeller mud-slinging farce. However, I'd like to help by providing some evidence on Spitfire cockpit colours from primary sources, i.e. Spitfires. I'm looking at some fragments of Spitfire Mk Vb EN856 right now and all the interior parts which are painted green are virtually a perfect match for Humbrol 78. These parts include cockpit parts and the tubular framework onto which the engine cowling side panels fix.

We've also got parts in storage from another Mk Vb which show nothing other than a Hu78 type colour.

We don't have any Mk I or II parts in the museum so I can't give any primary source matches for them but there was a book published some years ago on Battle of Britain aircraft colours which made extensive reference to parts from crash-recovered aircraft. I don't have it to hand (surely somebody on here will) but I seem to recall that there were some interior parts from Spitfire Mk Is which were painted in a close match to Hu78 whilst others were a much paler shade. I matched this lighter colour to my own satisfaction by adding white to Hu78. I am the first to acknowledge that colour reproduction in books can be suspect, but the overall colour reproduction in this particular book was good.

I would go along with John's comments in posts 10 and 17 regarding Hu90. I'm convinced that it's never changed but, like him, I'm willing to change my mind if somebody can come up with compelling evidence. One thing I really would like to know is - how could anybody come up with the description "beige green"? Why didn't they call it "Sky", because it is exactly the same colour as the "Sky Type S" in the old Authentics range. And a note to the younger Britmodellers who are wondering what all this blather about "authentics" is - we are talking ancient modelling history now!

[Edgar]

I would go along with John's comments in posts 10 and 17 regarding Hu90. I'm convinced that it's never changed but, like him, I'm willing to change my mind if somebody can come up with compelling evidence.

The evidence we have comes from Hornby, who told us that they had to change the formula, in order to make it a match for Sky.

One thing I really would like to know is - how could anybody come up with the description "beige green"? Why didn't they call it "Sky",

Maybe because it wasn't supposed to be Sky? I really hate repeating myself, but, if 90 was always Sky, why did Hornby have to change the formula to make it a match for Sky?

[Andrew Jones]

Whilst not doubting for a moment what Hornby has told Edgar , I have both old and new tinlets of Humbrol 90 and Authentic Sky type S , and to my untrained eye there is very little, if any difference between any of them.

Andrew

[Space Ranger]

And, not to confuse the issue, here is a scan of an old Humbrol color chart showing Eau-de Nil:

[John]

I think this is the most likely thing that happened. It would have been in 1986, as the Spit apparently was in the first Humbrol batch , and I don't think any of the early kits came without translation to Humbrol paints, as the required Humbrol paints were also stated on the box.No idea what Airfix originally specified - M16 perhaps (which is approximative to Sky, somewhat) ?

Duck Egg Blue M8 was the Airfix variant of Sky:

It wasn't blue, but it was well within the ballpark for Sky.

John

[John]

The evidence we have comes from Hornby, who told us that they had to change the formula, in order to make it a match for Sky.

Maybe because it wasn't supposed to be Sky? I really hate repeating myself, but, if 90 was always Sky, why did Hornby have to change the formula to make it a match for Sky?

That needs to be put against the evidence presented in this thread and elsewhere that the colour of 90 hasn't varied significantly in the 35 years since it was first added to the range. This has been attested to by other posters here and by photographic evidence of old samples of the paint against the RAFM RAF Colours book colour chip. Once again, Hornby may have changed the formulation but the colour remained pretty much the same.

It's also worth pointing out that, far from being a colour with no purpose during the Humbrol ownership of Airfix, it was actually the recommended shade for Sky undersurfaces in Airfix kit instructions from that period. The painting diagram from the Humbrol era release of the 1/48th scale Hurricane I, for example, calls for 29, 30 and 90 as the main colours for the 32 Squadron option.

If the colour chip in the Humbrol Colour System folder doesn't look like 90, then I would respectfully suggest that there's an issue with the chip rather than the paint. However, I don't have a copy of the folder so I can't comment further about that.

John

[Peter Roberts]

Can I bring the discussion back to the original post, Spitfire cockpits, please?

Ivor at post 29 has kindly posted that Spitfires have indeed been finished in grey-green (similar to Humbrol 78), based on original parts.

So, it would seem that we have two possible colours for Spitfire cockpits. Is there anything out there to say which Spitfire was likely to have which colour? By Mark? By factory? By timeline?

PR

[cdk]

Hello,

in - The Royal Air Force of World War Two in Colour - by Roger A. Freeman on pages 2,52,56 and 126 we can see some Spitfire interior colour. It is my personal feeling that there are different shades and that there are lighter as Humbrol 78. Can someone cive a comment on the code letter on page 56? when the letter is Sky we have a direct comparison to the colour on the entry door.

Only my guess

Claus

Edited August 7, 2014 by cdk

[Nick Millman]

Ivor at post 29 has kindly posted that Spitfires have indeed been finished in grey-green (similar to Humbrol 78), based on original parts.

PR

Oh, did you miss my post # 11? Here it is again:-

Spitfire components I have examined match the Grey Green and Humbrol 78 quite well

[Dave Fleming]

Late mark Spitfire components I have seen also are a good match for the AM grey green, and a for at least some of the Humbrol 78 (as I said above, I have a few pots which are all slightly different - the most recent is more green and less grey).

However, I have no doubt that some Spitfire, and in particular early ones, were painted with a different shade. I'd love to see some pics so we can see!

As for 90, I don't think we have any proof that it was intended to be anything other than Sky. The formula may have had to be changed to get it closer to Sky.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Dave Fleming

[Edgar]

If the colour chip in the Humbrol Colour System folder doesn't look like 90, then I would respectfully suggest that there's an issue with the chip rather than the paint.

So, it's your contention that Humbrol produced a particular colour, misnamed it, left it wrongly named for 35 years, then meanwhile deliberately sold hundreds of colour chips, which didn't match the colour, to unsuspecting modellers? Edited August 7, 2014 by Edgar

[John]

My contention, once again, is that colour 90 is and has been since 1978 Humbrol's interpretation of the MAP shade Sky, and that on the basis of the evidence available to us at the moment the colour of 90 has remained broadly consistent over those 36 years as a very good match for Sky as defined by the chip included with "British Aviation Colours of World War Two: The Official Camouflage, Colours & Markings of RAF Aircraft, 1939-1945", Arms and Armour Press, London, 1986.

I would also be wary of reading too much into a name. Humbrol used to call PRU Blue "Petrol Blue", for example, but the colour in the pot was still PRU Blue. It may have pleased Humbrol to christen 90 as Beige Green in 1978, but it's still Sky. Come to that, if the claim is that Hornby changed the colour of 90 at some point post-2006, why didn't they rename it? Surely that means they have also "produced a particular colour, misnamed it, [and still] left it wrongly named [after] 35 years",because according to the Humbrol website it's *still* called Beige Green.

John

[Peter Roberts]

Nick, my humble apologies. Yes, I did miss your comment on the parts. Thank you for pointing this out. Sorry about that. Old(er) age does things to ones attention ( my excuse, anyway)

So, given that we have two shades of interior green for the Spitfire, my original question still stands. Is there any rhyme or reason behind this? Date? Mark? Factory? Or don't we know (yet)

My interpretation, from Edgar's post, is that there may have been only one identifying reference for interior green, which seems to encompass all variations (?). Or have I read too much into this post. Was there another reference for this other brighter green?

PR

Edited August 8, 2014 by Peter Roberts

[tempestfan]

Duck Egg Blue M8 was the Airfix variant of Sky:

How close are/were M8 and 16 together ? The latter apparently was originally called Duck Egg Green and renamed Vellum - it recommended to be used as spinner and undersurface colour in Airfix kits, possibly 02042 Hurricane, if I'm not mistaken.

As I understand it, Auhentics ran concurrently to the enlarged standard range for some time, and IIRC Authentics were more expensive. Perhaps Humbrol didn't consider it an attractive business proposition to have a standard Sky expressly named as such while trying to sell the (more or less) same paint in a different tin at a higher price.

[Spitfire31]

And, not to confuse the issue, here is a scan of an old Humbrol color chart showing Eau-de Nil:

That colour chart scan has a red overall colour cast and should ideally be corrected in Photoshop or similar before being used as a reference.

Kind regards,

Joachim

[Nick Millman]

The story of Humbrol paint names is perhaps more prosaic and just reflects the colourful journeys and by-ways the company has taken with varying degrees of control and deliberation. The standard range was not exclusive to aircraft modellers and "beige green" serves to describe the colour in generic terms whereas 'Sky' (as we have seen elsewhere) can have heads scratching. It would be interesting to see a sample of that old 28 Sky but perhaps it was then meant to be "Sky" in the non-RAF sense hence the blue-grey (RAF Sky Blue!) appearance?

Nick

[John]

How close are/were M8 and 16 together ? The latter apparently was originally called Duck Egg Green and renamed Vellum - it recommended to be used as spinner and undersurface colour in Airfix kits, possibly 02042 Hurricane, if I'm not mistaken.

As I understand it, Auhentics ran concurrently to the enlarged standard range for some time, and IIRC Authentics were more expensive. Perhaps Humbrol didn't consider it an attractive business proposition to have a standard Sky expressly named as such while trying to sell the (more or less) same paint in a different tin at a higher price.

M8

M16

M16 is darker and a bit yellower that M8. M8 is a good match for Sky.

M16 was definitely suggested for the spinner and fuselage band in the first boxing of the 1/72 Spitfire Vb.

I don't remember Authentics being more expensive, but they were also rare locally and needed a trip to Glasgow or Edinburgh for me. As for having more than one Sky colour, Humbrol actually had 4 in the standard range at the same time in the early 1980s - 23, 90, 95 and 97.

John

[John]

Nick, my humble apologies. Yes, I did miss your comment on the parts. Thank you for pointing this out. Sorry about that. Old(er) age does things to ones attention ( my excuse, anyway)

So, given that we have two shades of interior green for the Spitfire, my original question still stands. Is there any rhyme or reason behind this? Date? Mark? Factory? Or don't we know (yet)

My interpretation, from Edgar's post, is that there may have been only one identifying reference for interior green, which seems to encompass all variations (?). Or have I read too much into this post. Was there another reference for this other brighter green?

PR

The original reference (as far as I know) to a brighter green came from the Classic Aircraft book on the Spitfire released by Airfix and PSL in 1971. In it the authors described the interior colour of, I think, the Science Museum's Spitfire Mk1 and gave a mix of Humbrol paints to match it. When I tried the same mix I arrived at a shade not dissimilar to BS381c:217 Sea Green.

That may help with the colour but I'm afraid I can't add anything about dates or specific blocks of airframes.

Johh

[steelpillow]

When was the official Interior Green introduced?

I have a vague (and therefore unreliable) memory that the specification was not available at the time Spitfire production began, so a homebrew best guess was sanctioned. Caution: my memory also suggests this was an unconfirmed rumour.

[Nick Millman]

Nick, my humble apologies. Yes, I did miss your comment on the parts. Thank you for pointing this out. Sorry about that. Old(er) age does things to ones attention ( my excuse, anyway)

So, given that we have two shades of interior green for the Spitfire, my original question still stands. Is there any rhyme or reason behind this? Date? Mark? Factory? Or don't we know (yet)

My interpretation, from Edgar's post, is that there may have been only one identifying reference for interior green, which seems to encompass all variations (?). Or have I read too much into this post. Was there another reference for this other brighter green?

PR

That's ok - I should have added a smiley. You were at least following a well-established Britmodeller tradition of ignoring my comments and then acknowledging a subsequent comment that confirmed or repeated what I had already stated. It happens a lot.

On that note please refer to the same comment and my remarks about Eau-de-nil! ;-)

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58465-raf-airfield-vehicles-cab-interior-colours/

There are relevant snippets in this thread on that other perennial merry-go-round the colour of the Irish Spitfire, including the analysis of the interior Spitfire parts and a quote from an interesting observation on Spitfire cockpits by Dennis Teague:-

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234912860-irish-trix/

There is a point at which shared understanding rooted in first hand commonality becomes extinct and historic research takes over, the two by no means dovetailing comfortably. In the 1950s we knew with some certainty (and greater contentment I venture) that RAF cockpit interiors were simply "pale green" because our Frog kit instructions said so...

Nick

[gingerbob]

...a well-established Britmodeller tradition of ignoring my comments and then acknowledging a subsequent comment that confirmed or repeated what I had already stated.

There is a point at which shared understanding rooted in first hand commonality becomes extinct and historic research takes over, the two by no means dovetailing comfortably.

A prophet is never honored in his own country, or something like that. Or maybe it's just short attention span!

"Shared understanding" isn't always as fact-based as we like to think it is- nor is it usually as near to "universally" shared, or for that matter true "understanding". I was at a local model club meeting the other evening, and during the time I was there it was almost entirely a 'hangar-flying' (aka BS) session. Reminded me very much of the sorts of things I'd have felt myself once upon a time- such as (just as an example of flavor) quoting Martin Caidin as historical evidence.

Ah well, back to the ensuing riot over Humbrol 90...

bob

[Nick Millman]

Hardly a prophet - they deal in prophecies. My only prophecy is that this subject will undoubtedly come up again...

I wasn't suggesting that "shared understanding" was "fact based", "universally accepted" or true. I was merely alluding to its nature in often obviating a need for forensic documentation that subsequent generations find a need for - familiarity breeds contempt and all that. Thousands of what would now be rare aircraft were ruthlessly destroyed at the end of the war and very few bothered to record their colours. Even when they did the records are still argued over. But the level of measurement required was very different with in the main generic colour descriptions being satisfactory. Even the RAE records of camouflage trials and requirements refer in the main to colour names (not always consistently) and sample swatches without predicating rigid measurements.

So we can probably relax a little.

Nick