Out of my comfort zone, P.51 build

[canberra kid]

I think we'll sit down with the big 'Colour Swatch Card!!?

A good idea Paul, but I bet it's not in there either!

John

[mcdonnell]

A good idea Paul, but I bet it's not in there either!

John

Maybe it won't be but at least we can have a hearty debate about it!

[Nick Millman]

I must say the idea of blue is appealing, but I can't think of reason for a blue top side for an escort/ground attack aircraft operating over Northern/Central Europe when there is an abundance of standard and accepted camouflage colours. To me green makes much more sense,

John

Paint it green then! But when doing so maybe also ponder the reason why 'black' P-47s existed. To quote 'lampie' in another thread on 56th FG colours:-

"February's 61st FS engineering report is even more specific, as it talks about our "black" P-47'Ms."

But maybe all those 61st FS engineers were colour blind and couldn't see any difference between RAF Dark Green and Night? Yeah, that'll be it.

Nick

[Giorgio N]

Always found this a tricky one... Considering the reputation of the observers who recorded blue aircrafts I'd be inclined to believe what they reported, however I wonder if there was any indication apart from blue ? A number of drawings and warbirds have represented this aircraft in a bright blue, something that I don't think any print of the original pictures can support. A bright blue of that type is also not really the best camouflage colour. Last but not least, if the unit used available paint, I can't think of any bright blue that would have been readily available in the quantities required to paint a large enough number of aircrafts. Did the bright blue indication come from oberservers' reports ? Or did the reports just mention blue ?

If only blue was mentioned, this could have been a dark colour, for example roundel blue. This would have been available in decent quantities from RAF stocks (although I wonder if in quantities sufficient to paint all aircrafts of the unit).

At the same time I wonder if the application of a green paint directly over the metal could return a colour capable of looking blue in certain light conditions ? Could the observers have witnessed a dark green looking blue ?

Edited December 17, 2015 by Giorgio N

[Nick Millman]

Do you know that these witnesses made contemporaneous notes and subsequently used them or is that hearsay or, worse, conjecture? I'm not questioning that Freeman did take notes, he said so many times. If so then the notes would provide more compelling evidence. They would certainly make a good argument that blue was indeed used on the aircraft that were observed.

My point remains that any eyewitnesss account made from memory needs to be treated with caution. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have no idea what your slightly antagonistic comment about 'peddling' the 78% thing here before pertains to. I've never mentioned it here or anywhere else before as I only found that statistic today when looking for some solid figures to quantify the lack of reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Cheers

Steve

For someone who claims that they have no axe to grind you seem to be doing a fair bit of axe grinding against those contemporary observers. Hearsay or conjecture? I suggest that you get yourself a copy of M J F Bowyer's 'Fighting Colours' and read the author's preface for yourself about how he used notes made at the time and which usually record specific aircraft and code/serial number combinations in specific places and at specific times - the book contains the details. C Rupert Moore's matched 'colour sticks', notes and paintings ditto.

I thought the 78% thing was you but wasn't sure. It has been peddled here before as a way of undermining primary evidence observer records.

My comment was not antagonistic. It just disagreed with your attempted justification for dismissing those primary evidence observer records.

Nick

[lampie]

Paint it green then! But when doing so maybe also ponder the reason why 'black' P-47s existed. To quote 'lampie' in another thread on 56th FG colours:-

"February's 61st FS engineering report is even more specific, as it talks about our "black" P-47'Ms."

But maybe all those 61st FS engineers were colour blind and couldn't see any difference between RAF Dark Green and Night? Yeah, that'll be it.

Nick

And I get bought into the discussion because????

[Alan P]

And I get bought into the discussion because????

Probably because you're a good researcher, and in this case made a good example for unearthing a past situation that might have seemed unlikely, but was probably true.

It's funny how hung up we get about such things. We are talking about specifics in what was a fluid and changeable historical situation. Historians, enthusiasts and hobbyists have been discussing and, yes, arguing over these things for seven decades without any definitive answer.

With hobby modelling, surely it's about measuring the available evidence, opinion and latest interpretation and taking your best shot? No wonder the poor folk who have to do this for a living (3D modellers for films, etc) get such a hard time!

Edited December 18, 2015 by Alan P

[Stonar]

For someone who claims that they have no axe to grind you seem to be doing a fair bit of axe grinding against those contemporary observers. Hearsay or conjecture? I suggest that you get yourself a copy of M J F Bowyer's 'Fighting Colours' and read the author's preface for yourself about how he used notes made at the time and which usually record specific aircraft and code/serial number combinations in specific places and at specific times - the book contains the details. C Rupert Moore's matched 'colour sticks', notes and paintings ditto.

I thought the 78% thing was you but wasn't sure. It has been peddled here before as a way of undermining primary evidence observer records.

My comment was not antagonistic. It just disagreed with your attempted justification for dismissing those primary evidence observer records.

Nick

I was not dismissing those primary observer records. I was making a point about the fallability of human memory and suggesting that any assertion base on such should be treated with caution. As far as I have seen in this thread the only observers named were Freeman and now Bowyer. We all agree that they took notes and they both enjoy, quite correctly, impeccable reputations. Do we know that notes were taken on this particular aircraft? How many observers support the contention that it was blue? These do not seem to me unreasonable questions to ask if I am to accept this 'primary evidence'. Am I not allowed to question, test or prove evidence because of the reputation of the person giving it? Here I would have an axe to grind!

'The Mighty Eighth' was a work in progress for many years and was first published about 25 years after the war. The 'In Colour' book (which I don't have) quoted way up the thread was published much later (late eighties/early nineties?). Time had passed. I'm trying to be objective whilst risking accusations of in some way attacking the reputation of someone like the late Roger Freeman, which is not the case at all.

Cheers

Steve

[FalkeEins]

I must say the idea of blue is appealing, but I can't think of reason for a blue top side for an escort/ground attack aircraft operating over Northern/Central Europe when there is an abundance of standard and accepted camouflage colours. To me green makes much more sense,

John

Drew himself touched on the subject of 'royal blue' Mustangs in his memoir (ghost written with R Powell) 'The Katzenjammer Ace'. I posted the actual page excerpt on this 2013 BM thread

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234947146-p-51d-mustang-lou-iv-colours-revisited/

Edited December 18, 2015 by FalkeEins

[lampie]

Ghost writing...

Look at the poo-poo Caidin caused with Thunderbolt!

Edit,, I didn't want to say poo poo!!

Naughty word, is 5hit !!

Slapped wrist

Edited December 18, 2015 by lampie

[lampie]

I was not dismissing those primary observer records. I was making a point about the fallability of human memory and suggesting that any assertion base on such should be treated with caution. As far as I have seen in this thread the only observers named were Freeman and now Bowyer. We all agree that they took notes and they both enjoy, quite correctly, impeccable reputations. Do we know that notes were taken on this particular aircraft? How many observers support the contention that it was blue? These do not seem to me unreasonable questions to ask if I am to accept this 'primary evidence'. Am I not allowed to question, test or prove evidence because of the reputation of the person giving it? Here I would have an axe to grind!

'The Mighty Eighth' was a work in progress for many years and was first published about 25 years after the war. The 'In Colour' book (which I don't have) quoted way up the thread was published much later (late eighties/early nineties?). Time had passed. I'm trying to be objective whilst risking accusations of in some way attacking the reputation of someone like the late Roger Freeman, which is not the case at all.

Cheers

Steve

Roger did a fabulous job, as did Danny Morris.

People lose sight of the fact that researchers nowadays have the benefit of 50 years extra material available to us, including unprecedented access to the many hundreds of thousand pages of documents in the archives.

One of Peter and I's stateside colleagues recently pulled 3500 pages on the 56th for us, and that didn't scratch the surface of what's there on file.

Stuff that Roger would have given his left nut for.

This doesn't change many people's opinions that if Roger said it then that's the definitive say on the matter because it's Roger.

Such is human nature.

I have the greatest of respect for Roger, and have been privileged to have access to his notes, letters, and files.

We find stuff in there that contradicts what appeared in print at times too.

Research is always ongoing.

One photo, found in a drawer and not having seen the light of day for 70 years can change everything ever written by historians.

Does that make them wrong?

No, it makes them human doing the best they can with the information available to them at the time.

Edited December 18, 2015 by lampie

[Nick Millman]

Re Mr Bowyer's description of "really Royal Blue". We can't know exactly what blue he meant by that but FWIW the perception of Royal Blue has changed in recent years with the modern WWW version quite unlike the original perception of it, being much brighter and lighter. Traditionally Royal Blue (or The Royal Blue) was the name given to the colour of a cloth produced by the Scutts Bridge Mill in Rode, Somerset in response to a request from George III. This new colour was selected for the state robes of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom as the wife of King George III and can also be seen in the well-known painting of Queen Elizabeth II in her coronation robes. Original Royal Blue was a very dark and strong, slightly purplish blue approximately similar to FS 15044. What has become the traditional perception of Royal Blue is closer to FS 25056 in appearance and the WWW version is even lighter.

The colour photos suggest a dark blue (if that is what it is!) closer to the original very dark, purplish blue.

Nick

[lampie]

When asked about "blue" mustangs at a reunion, a bunch of 361st ground crew practically wet themselves laughing.

But what do they know?

They only worked in them day in day out, as opposed to "spotting" one or two.

[Nick Millman]

I was not dismissing those primary observer records. I was making a point about the fallability of human memory and suggesting that any assertion base on such should be treated with caution. As far as I have seen in this thread the only observers named were Freeman and now Bowyer. We all agree that they took notes and they both enjoy, quite correctly, impeccable reputations. Do we know that notes were taken on this particular aircraft? How many observers support the contention that it was blue? These do not seem to me unreasonable questions to ask if I am to accept this 'primary evidence'. Am I not allowed to question, test or prove evidence because of the reputation of the person giving it? Here I would have an axe to grind!

'The Mighty Eighth' was a work in progress for many years and was first published about 25 years after the war. The 'In Colour' book (which I don't have) quoted way up the thread was published much later (late eighties/early nineties?). Time had passed. I'm trying to be objective whilst risking accusations of in some way attacking the reputation of someone like the late Roger Freeman, which is not the case at all.

Cheers

Steve

Why is it necessary for you to have to "accept" this primary evidence? Who made you Sheriff of Britmodeller? FalkeEins has now posted a link to a direct quote about his own record. I couldn't care less whether you "accept" it or not. Far from being impartial with no axe to grind it seems that you are continuously attempting to throw doubt on the primary observer records, regardless of how they are further qualified as to being contemporaneous notes. Maybe, just maybe, they are true and accurate. As much as you like to keep asking the sort of cross-examination questions asked in a court of law (are you a lawyer by any chance?) the answers, which are unknown, might also satisfy every one of them. So your scepticism might justifiably be "treated with caution" too!

But what does "treated with caution" actually mean? And how are you going to enforce that? I think notions of off-white Zeroes and excessive primer-less paint wear should be "treated with caution" but it makes not a bit of difference to the people still happily churning those out.

There is primary observer evidence of "blue" Mustangs and the photos do not categorically refute that. You can believe what you want and modellers are free to paint their Mustang models blue and say "This is my model based on Mr Bowyer's primary observer evidence and my interpretation of those colour photos which I'm treating with caution and which might be wrong but that hasn't stopped me from creating it". If something definitive comes up they might indeed be wrong - like AVG Tomahawks with grey undersurfaces. But it's not the end of the world.

Nick

[Nick Millman]

When asked about "blue" mustangs at a reunion, a bunch of 361st ground crew practically wet themselves laughing.

But what do they know?

They only worked in them day in day out, as opposed to "spotting" one or two.

That's a great anecdote to throw Mr Bowyer's record into doubt. My old Dad worked on Austers in 651 Air OP Sqn day in and day out too, he also ground echeloned them from Palestine to Libya across Egypt and North Africa but was never able to tell me what colour(s) they were. Not even in the 1960s, a bare 20 years after the event. But I bet I could if I had visited one of the landing strips once with a notebook, pencil and intention to record!

Nick

[lampie]

That's a great anecdote to throw Mr Bowyer's record into doubt. My old Dad worked on Austers in 651 Air OP Sqn day in and day out too, he also ground echeloned them from Palestine to Libya but was never able to tell me what colour(s) they were. Not even in the 1960s, a bare 20 years after the event.

Nick

I bet he knew what colours they weren't though!

Feck me, this place is getting worse than Diaperscale.

You have some very knotted underwear this morning Nick.

Edited December 18, 2015 by lampie

[Nick Millman]

I bet he knew what colours they weren't though!

Feck me, this place is getting worse than Diaperscale.

You have some very knotted underwear this morning Nick.

He didn't actually. We went from "desert colours - green and brown" to "white", then to "silver" then back to "desert colours" with lots of "er", "no, hold on", "wait a minute" and "let me see now" scattered throughout. When I gently suggested that RAF "desert colours" were actually two browns I got a very sceptical look. He remembered re-painting them in Palestine with white ones apparently passed on to the UN but couldn't be certain about anything else.

Apparently I'm just not sceptical enough. Now I have knotted underwear.

Nick

[canberra kid]

I'm starting to think Blue may just be a possibility, I think it would look cool! So with that in mind, how's this for an hypothesise?

The aircraft were painted a dark blue(I still can't think why though) it had to be a colour that was readily available, so what about the dark blue as used on the national markings? Just a minuet, the national markings would diaper against the same colour wouldn't they? Yes, but if they mask off a an area around them they would still stand out.

The reason I'm wanting to build this particular aircraft is the I talked to Mr. Drew on the phone one time when he was president of the Thunderbolt Pilots Accusation, he had wanted to talk to my dad but he was out, so I had a bit of a chat with some American bloke that I had never heard of! If only I'd have known about all this then, but there again, as has already been pointed out the driver's aren't always the best people to ask about such things!

John

[JWM]

I do not know if anybody noticed black (?) strips on E2-C (Lou IV) on horizotal stabilizers from bottom

And from top :

[stevej60]

Paint it blue John,paint the thing blue! Hope this is of interest

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/05/stuff_eng_ww2incolor_louiv.htm

Edited December 19, 2015 by stevej60

[keefr22]

I'm starting to think Blue may just be a possibility, I think it would look cool! So with that in mind, how's this for an hypothesise?

The aircraft were painted a dark blue(I still can't think why though) it had to be a colour that was readily available, so what about the dark blue as used on the national markings? Just a minuet, the national markings would diaper against the same colour wouldn't they? Yes, but if they mask off a an area around them they would still stand out.

Except John, in the b&w pic you posted at the start of the thread (& the enhanced (?) version of same), the national insignia look darker than the surrounding paint?

Canberra's seem much less problematic....!!

Keith

[757flyer]

Knowing I will likely regret this question, but being a glutton for punishment.... what are considered the best sources for color references for USAAF and RAF aircraft from WWII?

Mike

[Michou]

Much of what I use has been long out of print. For what it is worth:

British Aviation Colours of World War Two
RAF Museum Series Volume 3
Arms and Armour Press, 1976
This book contains Air Ministry Orders and a colour chart.
Briefly, how things should have been done and not necessarily how they were.

Fighting Colours: RAF Fighter Camouflage and Markings 1937-1969
Michael J F Bowyer
Patrick Stevens, 1969
Michael Bowyer is one of the spotters who made a written note of seeing blue Mustangs and much of this book is also based on his contemporary written notes. In contrast to the work above, this is what was done.

Bombing Colours: RAF bombers, their markings and operations 1937-1973
Michael J F Bowyer
Patrick Stevens, 1973
Same comments as above.

Camouflage & Markings: RAF Fighter Command, 1936-1945
James Goulding and Robert Jones
Ducimus Books, 1970-1971
This is a bound volume of a series of booklets.

Camouflage & Markings: United States Army Air Force 1937-1945
Roger A Freeman
Ducimus Books, 1974

Originally a seies of booklets also.

I'll let the Americans comment on their colo(u)r references.

Mike

Knowing I will likely regret this question, but being a glutton for punishment.... what are considered the best sources for color references for USAAF and RAF aircraft from WWII?

Mike

[occa]

Here is colour photo of both Lou IV (E2-C) and E2-S

http://s1088.photobucket.com/user/Osprey_Modelling_Blog/media/Suppliers%20pics/EagleCals/EC%20140/ReferenceP-51sEC1404.jpg.html

For me it is one colour from top, and possibly OD

Regards

Jerzy-Wojtek

I think that's a (poorly) colorized B/W photo, the ground that is visible through the clouds has no colors at all

[canberra kid]

Paint it blue John,paint the thing blue! Hope this is of interest

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/05/stuff_eng_ww2incolor_louiv.htm

Thanks Steve (I think?) very interesting and in a lot of ways mirrors what has been talked about in this thread, I'm probably just as if not a wee bit more unsure now I've read it as they have thrown in another option, a mix of blue and green! I'm still liking the idea of a dark (roundel) blue, I may just bite the bullet and go with that!

Except John, in the b&w pic you posted at the start of the thread (& the enhanced (?) version of same), the national insignia look darker than the surrounding paint?

Canberra's seem much less problematic....!!

Keith

Keith you're right perhaps roundel blue is closer perhaps the light outline makes it appear a different shade? I'm not sure that Canberra's are less problematic but at least I know my way around them better I can't wait until I start my PRU Mauve Spitfire!

John