Early Westland Seafire Colours

[Denford]

An old chestnut, but one that hasn’t been aired before on Britmodeller as far as I can trace.

The first Seafires built by Westland had, in the B&W photos of the time, a far greater contrast than those from Supermarine. It is generally assumed that this was because they were painted (at least on the upper surfaces) in Day Fighter Scheme: DFS.

There are few if any photos of the undersurfaces with enough detail to ascertain the colour there. Some say Sky (correct for TSS on other FAA aircraft) others Medium Sea Grey consistent with DFS.

Westland had already been building Spitfires when production was switched to Seafires commencing llc & Lllc. It is therefore my contention that they either:

They were told to use up remaining stocks of ‘Spitfire’ paint (the FAA already had lots of ex RAF Spitfires)

or

Nobody told them to apply the TSS scheme.

However none appear to have retained the yellow leading edges, sky f/u bands and spinner consistent with the DFS so a) seems more likely.

Can anyone add anything to this?

[Graham Boak]

I'm sure it has been raised here before, but possibly not for a long time. It has been said that Mick Burrow did considerable delving into Westland records on this specific point and found nothing suggesting anything other than TSS being used. (I wasn't aware that those Seafires apparently different in colour had been specifically identified as only early Westland aircraft.)

I can see a few flaws in your two suggestions. For the first, many of the FAA's Spitfires were repainted into TSS. For the second, Westland would have received the same AMOs as other manufacturers and so would be well aware of the requirements. Had they not built any other FAA aircraft before?

On the other side, were the Fighter Command Sky and Yellow trim applied at the factory anyway, or at MUs? I'm sure that many know the answer to this, but my mind has gone blank...

[gingerbob]

Westland built a handful of Barracudas but lost that in order to build Seafires.

bob

[Denford]

I'm sure it has been raised here before, but possibly not for a long time. It has been said that Mick Burrow did considerable delving into Westland records on this specific point and found nothing suggesting anything other than TSS being used. (I wasn't aware that those Seafires apparently different in colour had been specifically identified as only early Westland aircraft.)

I can see a few flaws in your two suggestions. For the first, many of the FAA's Spitfires were repainted into TSS. For the second, Westland would have received the same AMOs as other manufacturers and so would be well aware of the requirements. Had they not built any other FAA aircraft before?

On the other side, were the Fighter Command Sky and Yellow trim applied at the factory anyway, or at MUs? I'm sure that many know the answer to this, but my mind has gone blank...

Some photos of Seafires indisputably show a high contrast: I think it was Paul Lucas and/or Neil Robinson who 'tracked' this down to early Westland Machines, proposed DFS upper surfaces and queried what the under surfaces might have been. The fact that it was investigated in depth supports the 'issue'. Nothing found: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as they say. 60+ years on how much archive material has been lost? How else can this 'peculiar' feature be explained? I don't know.

Yes of course, many FAA Seafires were repainted. That's not the point, which is whether Westland delivered (early) Seafires in DFS finish. Westland would indeed received MAP instructions, but that wouldn't have prevented them drawing attention to the unused quantities of DFS paints and asking directions.

Earlier builds of FAA aircraft: per post above, hardly any. Even if finished in TSS only small amounts would have been required and the surplus from Spitfire production remain.

Photographic evidence shows that yellow and sky 'trim' was factory applied. Removal would have been at the MU if these were inappropriate for the destination.

[Graham Boak]

If the FAA wanted their Spitfires to be in TSS, why should they not want their Seafires to be the same? This theory appears to be based on the idea that Westland overstocked paint for DFS, yet had no significant stocks of appropriate paint for TSS. It also assumes that this situation could not have been rectified in time for the production and delivery of Seafires. This is despite the considerable time (months) needed to prepare for this production, and that they had (immediately previously) been set up to deliver large numbers of Barracudas in TSS. Yes, only small amounts of paint would have been required to paint the few Barracudas actually built, but that was never the original intention. Stocks would have been built up - Just In Time manufacturing was half a century ahead.

Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence: but that doesn't mean any idea can be invented just in order to justify a theory that might explain what might (or might not) be an anomaly. As for exactly what Mick Burrows found you'll have to ask him - was it the absence of a direct instruction to paint certain aircraft in DFS or the presence of instructions to paint in TSS with no other qualification? I don't know. TSS is very variable in photos - I recall basing an argument about the camouflage on Indomitable's Sea Hurricane 7.Z on its different appearance to neighbouring SHs, only to later discover colour film showing it indisputably in the same TSS. It may be that these Seafires were differently camouflaged - they certainly look that way in b&w photos - but better evidence is required. Or indeed any evidence other than these photos.

[Magpie22]

Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence: but that doesn't mean any idea can be invented just in order to justify a theory that might explain what might (or might not) be an anomaly. As for exactly what Mick Burrows found you'll have to ask him - was it the absence of a direct instruction to paint certain aircraft in DFS or the presence of instructions to paint in TSS with no other qualification? I don't know. TSS is very variable in photos - I recall basing an argument about the camouflage on Indomitable's Sea Hurricane 7.Z on its different appearance to neighbouring SHs, only to later discover colour film showing it indisputably in the same TSS. It may be that these Seafires were differently camouflaged - they certainly look that way in b&w photos - but better evidence is required. Or indeed any evidence other than these photos.

I fully agree with Graham. There is a strong tendency when looking at photos that do not agree with our perception of what the tones of the colours should look like, for us to assume that the aircraft has been painted in a non standard scheme. Why? Your first level of research should always be written orders and instructions. If you cannot find an instruction that contradicts those orders, do not assume that there was one. As Graham said, "Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence", a basic scientific and engineering principle. Better to assume that the aircraft was painted according to orders rather than rely on someone's interpretation of black and white photos.

Interpretation of black and white images is an activity fraught with danger. Do not rely solely on interpretation of black and white photos. Never let your perception of what you think the tones of colours should be, override an understanding of photographic techniques and film chemistry! If you do not understand these, do not try to interpret colours from black and white photographs, (or colour photos for that matter). . However, I do acknowledge that we all make this mistake, myself included!!

In my work I had to do quite a bit of technical photography, (although I am not a professional photographer). One aspect of this was flow visualization, using coloured dyes over a model mounted in a water tunnel. As the establishment I worked for, (yep a Government department), could not afford to print their reports in colour at that time, we were forced to publish in black and white. We experimented with several types of film, different coloured lens filters, different wave lengths of lighting, and filters on the lights illuminating the subject, in order to try and get contrasting tones for the different coloured dyes. If nothing else, this taught me to never rely on the brain's subjective evaluation of tones reproduced on prints to judge the original colour of the subject, unless that colour is already known to you.

Most will be aware that panchromatic and orthochromatic films, the films most commonly used in the periods we are interested in, have different spectral sensitivities. Ortho film is particularly sensitive to ultra violet and blue. This means the film is very dark in those areas and, when printed, this shows as a white or very light tone on the print.

Those that have worked with orthochromatic film outdooors, will know that one of the first things you do is to fit a yellow or red filter to your camera lens. This has the effect of rendering the sky darker, (how dark depends on the grade of filter used), on the finished print, bringing out the cloudscape and making the print 'kinder' to the eye. A side effect is that it renders all blues, and colours containing blue, darker as well. Thus, for example, Ocean Grey, Sky Blue, Azure Blue, etc will all render quite differently on prints from film shot with a red/yellow filteron the camera lens, to those shot without any filter.

Panchromatic film is less sensitive to blue and more sensitive to red, giving a print that renders tones that are more 'natural' to the eye's perception. Nevertheless, photographers still used filters, ( generally a weaker yellow filter), to get that nice cloudscape, upsetting the tonal rendition of blues on the film yet again.

Of course, the above is a gross simplification and the film types and filters used affect the rendition of all colours across the spectrum, not solely blue as I chose to comment on for simplicity. There are also many other factors that effect how the tone of a colour is rendered on a black and white print. These may include incident light spectrum, (time of day and location), angle of the light to the subject, reflected light, and condition of surface of subject, (matt, gloss etc). Remember that the colour of an object, is not contained within that object. It is the result of the light which is incident on the subject and is reflected by it.

Apologies for the technical bullshit and hijacking this thread, but I do get tired of all those photograph interpretations. In short, do as Graham suggests, and stick with known information, not theory derived from the interpretation of black and white photos. I often bring to mind a series of well known shots of a line up of No. 3 Squadron RAAF Kittyhawks in the desert. Many pundits have described these aircraft as being finished in Light or Dark Mediterranean Blue under surfaces. Are they? Or are they in standard Azure Blue? These shots were taken by a professional photographer who has used a red filter to darken the sky.

Magpie 22

[tonyot]

I have seen a wartime colour film featuring a pair of Seafire`s doing gun spotting duties for a County Class Cruiser and one Seafire wears TSS colours while the other wears DFS with Sky undersides! They are seen on deck side by side and it is quite plain to see.

I had read that the Admiralty agreed to accept DFS colours on the upper surfaces as Westland still had large stocks of these paints having built Spitfire`s for the RAF and that once these colours were used up the remainder would be finished in TSS,........but that is just what I believe to be the case and I have no evidence although it does appear sound.

Cheers

Tony

[Graham Boak]

I've seen b&w pictures that appear to show the same but not the colour - that's a powerful argument in favour. Can the serials or at least other markings be made out? A way of finding supporting evidence would be to link a significant number of serials of early Westland-built Seafires to this difference, with all later serials but no earlier serials clearly in TSS, and no Supermarine-built aircraft showing this contrast. Given the variation of TSS in photographs this would be very difficult, but would be more convincing. I've seen FAA Spitfires in DFS, and even USN Spitfires in DFS for gunnery spotting. I've also seen (as said above) two Sea Hurricanes side-by-side appearing very different in b&w but both in TSS. The theory still stumbles over this idea that Westland had large stocks of DFS colours that had to be "used up" rather than returned to manufacturer or exchanged. And if the upper-surface colours why not MSG as well? Are the Admiralty going to insist on Sky undersides whatever the upper colours? However, produce pictures of the Westland-built Barracudas in DFS and I'll be convinced. (Sky band and Yellow leading edges are NOT required, but would be fun.)

I must add that there'd be a lot fewer colour profiles and models around if we abandoned interpretation of b&w photos altogether, but interpretation should always be hedged with doubt for the reasons Magpie22 expresses - and no doubt others. I must admit enjoying the exercise myself, possibly to excess!

[Denford]

I'm trying to 'wrap up' or the thread, though others may wish to continue.

Yes, black and white photos can imply false contrasts etc, but in my opinion there are just too many early Westland Seafire photos with high contrast, taken in many different locations etc to be ignored. Others can take the view that all Seafires were in TSS full stop, and any apparent variation is down to light, film type etc and should be ignored.

Thank you Tonyot for your posting: just what I wanted to read so perhaps I should be suspicious....

If there was no official requirement for DFS, here's another possibility hinted at in my original post. I think it was Napoleon who said "Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence" At the risk of legal action from Westland, those in the paint shop might well not have realised (or known) that what they were spraying was no longer destined for their accustomed DFS Spitfires, but Seafires needing TSS. Most parts were identical, or nearly so, with no way of telling. They just kept spraying away in DFS, like they'd always done when they should have changed to TSS. "But what about all that TSS paint over there?" "Ah, that's for the Barracuda contract"

Sooner of later the error would have been spotted: what then? Carry on DFS, hybrid ...? On that I'll pass on that.

Why do I want to wrap up, or at least pause the thread? I'm trying to finalise decal details for a forthcoming Lllc kit and obviously colour schemes come into it unless all are identical which plainly they aren't.

Every, repeat every potential subject has been verified as Lllc by serial number and 4 blade propeller (or usually what's left of it) and sometimes clipped wings. The serial number identifies the maker and it is clear that Westland a/c have a high b&w contrast Supermarine low. One of the subjects has never previously been illustrated: goodness knows why as it came from FAA archives Yeovilton. And you've guessed it: a Westland a/c showing high contrast: aaaagh... Very soft colour edges too, but that's another story.

[gingerbob]

I'd want to review the photographic evidence first, if I were trying to get to the bottom of this. What photos exactly, what serials are thrown up, when were photos taken? Do any (as Tony's wonderful example, if only I could see it) show both variations together in the same photo, which (despite Graham's warning) provides far more weighty evidence than separate photos.

Another tweak to your theory is that in the early days Westland would have been building both Vc(Trop, primarily) and Seafire IIc, so more opportunity either for confusion or a compromise: "For production expediency, paint all components the same until further notice." That is, though, only speculation.

bob

[tonyot]

Hiya Fella`s,

I`ve taken some photos from my Telly screen, see below;

and here is the Cruiser;

Having looked at the film again it is possible that the lighter of the two Seafire`s could wear a heavily weathered and faded TSS scheme but it does resemble the high contrast scheme visible in many b&w Seafire photos and it does have Sky undersides. The green shade could be weathered Dark Green or Dark Slate Grey? Whatever the case it has been retouched along the rear fuselage, note traces of a painted out roundel section on the radio hatch and the repositioned roundel on the left hand side.

And you thought that b&w photos were hard to interpret properly!!

Just for interest here are some other Seafire`s,..although the first one is either a Seafire Ib or a Spitfire Vb (Graham- is that shark mouthed early Barracuda wearing DFS or TSS?);

my model of the above;

and a TSS Seafire;

Cheers

Tony

Edited November 13, 2015 by tonyot

[Denford]

Thanks very, very much for the downloads.

Helps my contention that some Seafires had DFS.

[vppelt68]

Thanks! Now I must go shopping for some S'fires 😊

[Graham Boak]

Thanks Tony. I still think someone, at least, should remain as Devil's Advocate on the subject. The snips from the colour film are interesting in showing 4-blade props and 6-a-side exhausts, together with a B wing on the second aircraft and no apparent arrester hook. Somewhat of a hybrid then, to which you can add the 1945-style roundels on the upper wing. This would tend to rule out an aircraft painted in DFS in 1943 and not only retaining these colours for over two years but actually being repainted in service with the same non-standard paints. This seems unlikely. We do know that Spitfires lingering in FAA service were repainted in TSS - there's a commonly-reproduced photo of a Mk.I and a Mk.V escorting the Fw190 after a 1944 visit to Yeovilton.

In the photo of the maintenance/training area (was it Milfield?) the aircraft in the foreground has been identified as a Spitfire, although how to tell from the view is difficult. The presence of the strengthening ribs above the wheelwell is not commonly seen on Seafires, if at all, but there appears to be no good reason why not. The dark appearance of the green looks more like the faded appearance of Dark Green (at least some of the DG paints, anyway) rather than the brighter shade seen in several views and apparently faded Dark Slate Grey. For example, on the Corsair and the Barracudas - though that does rather look like a Yellow strip along the leading edge of the Barras!

The light colour of the red roundel centre on 8.M would suggest an unusual filter on the camera/film. The appearance of TSS in b&w is very dependent upon lighting conditions and film/filters. I've seen TSS appearing as high, low and medium contrast (approaching a single light upper-surface), though the highest contrast is usually on ortho film that reproduces the red as very dark. Which is why the "DFS or not" case is best supported by views (which I recall Neil Robinson publishing?) of contrasting Seafires in the same photo, not by singletons such as this. What about other photos from Avalanche? As I recall they have the appearance of TSS, but I haven't seen them analysed by serial - where visible!

Following on the ortho film point. Sturtivant's FAA Aircraft of WW2 has a photo of the first Westland Seafire III, LR675, which also has a very contrast between the two upper colours, but there the yellow outer ring of the roundel is dark telling us that this was ortho film, and the high contrast is caused by the film. The classic discussion on the Skua on Ark Royal with similar contrast showed that it was in EDSG/DSG on ortho and that this is what was on LR675. For DFS to show such a contrast it would have to be a fairly well-used airframe, where here we have a brand-new one.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Graham Boak

[vppelt68]

Ooh, just think about the discussion possibilities of Malta based Westland produced Seafires! Just kidding, of course 😅. Regards, V-P

[Graham Boak]

Some years ago there was a photo (on Hyperscale, I think) showing a collection/stack of wrecked Seafires, supposedly from Avalanche. I've long regretted not saving it, although not for this particular discussion. Has anyone got a copy and can comment on any differing appearances of the camouflage?

[tonyot]

Hiya Graham,

The second aircraft has a C Wing with the large double bubble over the gun bay (as per my models) so it is probably an LF Mk.IIc, bringing it well into the Westland `DFS' band. The forward aircraft appears to have a later C Wing with double cannon bay doors which have no bulged section, so the cannons must be removed. It is probably a Mk.III but could also be a Mk.II?

Cheers

Tony

Edited November 12, 2015 by tonyot

[Seahawk]

Apologies for digressing, but note how the blue of the wing roundels on the Corsair in Tony's post 11 is hard to distinguish from the surrounding camouflage colours, even in European conditions. It's my belief that this is what has happened in a lot of photos of East Indies Fleet aircraft which appear to show small roundels on top of the wing. I reckon the contrast between roundel and and camouflage has been further diminished by fading/bleaching/whatever the right word is and/or the strong light and that the photos are merely picking up the fresher blue and white overpaint of the red centres of the original Type B (or C) roundel, emphasized sometimes by a different finish ie slightly glossier. This would mean that those aircraft were then in fact compliant with the instructions (not to hand at the mo) that the upperwing roundels of EIF aircraft were to be a blue disc retaining the outer diameter of the original Type B/C roundel but with only a 9" white centre.

Have to admit this theory needs to be tested a little more rigorously than it has been (by me at least) so far.

I now return you to your scheduled viewing.

[tonyot]

Apologies for digressing, but note how the blue of the wing roundels on the Corsair in Tony's post 11 is hard to distinguish from the surrounding camouflage colours, even in European conditions. It's my belief that this is what has happened in a lot of photos of East Indies Fleet aircraft which appear to show small roundels on top of the wing. I reckon the contrast between roundel and and camouflage has been further diminished by fading/bleaching/whatever the right word is and/or the strong light and that the photos are merely picking up the fresher blue and white overpaint of the red centres of the original Type B (or C) roundel, emphasized sometimes by a different finish ie slightly glossier. This would mean that those aircraft were then in fact compliant with the instructions (not to hand at the mo) that the upperwing roundels of EIF aircraft were to be a blue disc retaining the outer diameter of the original Type B/C roundel but with only a 9" white centre.

Have to admit this theory needs to be tested a little more rigorously than it has been (by me at least) so far.

I now return you to your scheduled viewing.

I fully agree

cheers

Tony

[iang]

This shows high and low contrast in the same photograph. It is difficult to believe that the second Seafire on the starboard side of the ship is in the same finish as the first and third Seafire. I have a first generation print of this photo so will be able to determine the serials.

Edited November 12, 2015 by iang

[tonyot]

That photo does show the difference very well Ian,......I`m going to model K-W and think that the dark sweep down from the rear of the cockpit onto the wing is the shadow of the ships flag rather than an additional piece of painted on camouflage,.......what do you think?

It was nice to chat again at Telford mate,......I`ve not started the giant Mossie yet!

Cheers

Tony

[tonyot]

Ooh, just think about the discussion possibilities of Malta based Westland produced Seafires! Just kidding, of course . Regards, V-P

The photos above are Malta Seafire`s as the carrier is moored in Grand Harbour,........arghhhh!!!

Cheers

Tony

[tony8]

Fascinating discussion on a fav. subject . I have the DVD tonyot refers to .The additional valuable info.is much appreciated.

Was the model inc. in an article in SAM a couple of years ago?

[tonyot]

Was the model inc. in an article in SAM a couple of years ago?

Yes that`s the one,........well both of them were actually!

Cheers

Tony

Edited November 12, 2015 by tonyot

[Graham Boak]

Both NFxxx and NNxxx aircraft were Westland-built Mk.IIIs. If the first aircraft (NF539?) is showing DFS then this practice must have lasted a lot longer (at least a year) than the proposed early Mk.IIs - that must have been a large stock of excess paint. However, as the nearer aircraft was delivered some 6 months (March 1944) before the second (September 1944), we could be seeing the effects of fading and wear.

(If these are NF539 and NN328, it's difficult to bring them together from Sturtivant. 899 Sq on HMS Chaser is a possibility for the former but not the latter. Any other readings for the serial?)

I've been looking again at page 389 in Sturtivant. There is brand new Mk.III LR765 in (as argued above) TSS on ortho. There is L.IIc LR729 (probably also brand new) in very low contrast TSS. There is L.IIc LR734 on fairly high contrast but with very washed-out reds. Then there's Mk.III LR838 in fairly high contrast with dark red. This shows to me the high variability of TSS in photos, and even LR729 was off the production lines well before the NF example above (July 1943).

As a modeller, I'd love to have some variation in Seafire camouflage, but the above shows that if there's any case to be made for DFS it must be made for the early Westland production only (as initially suggested above), and pictures of later production aircraft in high contrast just weaken any arguments based on b&w photos.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Graham Boak