Spitfire Camo Application

[wschurr]

Can you guys give me some guidance on whether all Spitfires, especially the MK ls  had hard demarcations between colors?

[Work In Progress]

"All Spitfires?" No, they didn't. Practically nothing is true of "all Spitfires" apart from the name and the existence of frame 19.  Most were painted using flexible mats to mask. Feathering between upper surface colours was therefore pretty tight and in small scales e.g. 1/72 and 1/48 then hard demarcation looks better than any attempt to do it freehand with an airbrush. Demarcation between upper and lower colours is generally hard.

There was an almost interminable, and on occasion somewhat intemperate thread on the subject here, to which I doubt anything significantly new and enlightening will ever be added

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Work In Progress

[FinnAndersen]

AFAIK, the Spitfire painters, mats or not, was supposed to be able to have the camouflage colour demarkation within 2 inches. That's 0.7 mm using present day measures in 1/72. I wouldn't attempt that with an freehand airbrush.

 

BTW, if you look at pictures of Spitfires, there's a tell tale pattern beneath the starboard cockpit sill, with a distinctive curve to the camouflage pattern. This looks the same on a Spitfire I as it does on a Spitfire XVI produced four years later.

 

/Finn

Edited February 6, 2019 by FinnAndersen
clarification

[Mr T]

A good reply, the only thing I would add is that if you can find a photo of the plane you want to build, have a good look at it as some aircraft may have been refinished. 

[NPL]

3 hours ago, Mr T said:

A good reply, the only thing I would add is that if you can find a photo of the plane you want to build, have a good look at it as some aircraft may have been refinished. 

This is the alpha and omega of modelling: Find a photo. Use your own eyes, not others. And you will be surprised to realize how much 'eyes' may differ from person to person.

[Work In Progress]

And if we're going to reduce the thing to its logical conclusion, many Spitfires did not have camouflage demarcation lines at all.

[wschurr]

I just can’t believe I have been free handing this as meticulous as I thought I was. I poured over photo references all day and although it looks like freehand in several images, there is no doubt to these old eyes the edges were hard on the preponderance of examples. I wonder if this was true on the Lanc. Mossie etc.? 

[Graham Boak]

This really has been discussed in fairly tedious acrymony to excessive lengths, largely because of some American modellers blanket refusal to believe the evidence.  If you really want to know more, go looking for the postings on painting mats.

 

However, there is no one simple answer because different companies used different methods.  Mats were used on smaller aircraft, with particular reference here to Supermarine (specified on drawings) and Hawkers (personal descriptions from people who'd used them).  On larger aircraft it seems to have been more common to paint or chalk a line showing the demarcation (method of determining this line unspecified, as far as I know) with the rest filled in freehand.  There is known comment about the maximum permitted overlap, with both 1 inch and 2 inch being mentioned.  This presumably varied between companies and possibly sizes of aircraft.

 

One point to bear in mind is that many aircraft parts were painted pre-assembly, which would make for less interesting photographs even where such things were permitted (very rarely).  A paint shop is not a suitable environment for photography, particularly then.

 

It is tempting to suggest that standards were likely to be higher in the long-established company factories than in those of the shadow factories, but I know of no evidence for this.  Of course, as these were generally run by the motor car industry, they too would have a core of experienced painters with pride in their work.

[Giorgio N]

An answer to this question would depend on the kind of interest..

From a historical perspective we know that some form of mats or similar was used, at least in some factories, and that in any case there was a maximum overspray allowed.

At the same time we know that Spitfires were sometime repainted at MU level in theatre and while many repainted aircraft don't look too different from brand new ones (many airmen at MUs were very experienced), others show more feathered edges. In general anyway hard edges, or edges with very little overspray, are the norm. For some reason, even where the camouflage edges show a thin feathered line, the demarcation between upper and lower surfaces is always hard.

From a modelling perspective things would however depend a lot on what a modeller can achieve... a 0.7mm overspray with an airbrush is not impossible, I know people who can do it. However, I sure can't ! For this reason my preference is to always adopt hard edges for WW2 RAF aircraft (actually for all RAF aircraft). This unless I'm representing a subject that clearly shows very feathered edges. I should also add that 99% of my models are in 1/72 scale, where I feel that is very hard to properly represent a very narrow feathered edge, in 1/32 this would be a bit easier.

 

[Grey Beema]

43 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

This really has been discussed in fairly tedious acrymony to excessive lengths, largely because of some American modellers blanket refusal to believe the evidence.  If you really want to know more, go looking for the postings on painting mats.

 

However, there is no one simple answer because different companies used different methods.  Mats were used on smaller aircraft, with particular reference here to Supermarine (specified on drawings) and Hawkers (personal descriptions from people who'd used them).  On larger aircraft it seems to have been more common to paint or chalk a line showing the demarcation (method of determining this line unspecified, as far as I know) with the rest filled in freehand.  There is known comment about the maximum permitted overlap, with both 1 inch and 2 inch being mentioned.  This presumably varied between companies and possibly sizes of aircraft.

 

One point to bear in mind is that many aircraft parts were painted pre-assembly, which would make for less interesting photographs even where such things were permitted (very rarely).  A paint shop is not a suitable environment for photography, particularly then.

 

It is tempting to suggest that standards were likely to be higher in the long-established company factories than in those of the shadow factories, but I know of no evidence for this.  Of course, as these were generally run by the motor car industry, they too would have a core of experienced painters with pride in their work.

Was there a basic template which could be adapted to any aircraft design from the AM?

 

In my imagination there appear to be similarities in shapes so I just wondered who design the patterns for each aircraft type?

[Graham Boak]

The overall design was shown in AP 2656A, with different diagrams for different classes of aircraft : i.e. eg single engined monoplanes, twin engined monoplanes, large twin engined monoplanes, four engined monoplanes, single engined biplanes and twin-engined biplanes.  It was then up to the individual aircraft companies to convert these rather generic diagrams into the appropriate patterns for each type.

 

The pattern could be as shown, or in a mirror image, known as A and B schemes, and applied alternately on the production line   Apparently it was originally thought that third and fourth options would be used by exchanging the colours, but this was not adopted.  However there are examples of aircraft where this happened.  It appears to be most common on Desert camouflaged aircraft, because the darker shade in the pattern representing Dark Green had been replaced by the lighter Middle Stone, thus leading to some confusion.  By 1941 it was decided that a single pattern was to be used, but it was left up to the individual companies to decide whether this was to be A or B.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

I being an American Modeler wholeheartedly agree with the evidence that mats were used. Ive seen photo’s to prove it. Though i cant remember where i saw them ? Pretty sure it was here on B/modeller. 

[Graham Boak]

There are photos from Curtiss.  Probably that's what you have seen, but they came fairly late into the debate.

[Graham Boak]

Grey Beema:   If you want to take this further look for a copy of British Aviation Colours or World War Two, published by Arms & Armour Press in 1986.  This contains a reproduction of the most important Air Ministry Orders covering camouflage schemes, the diagrams and key text from AP 2656A, and facsimile colour chips of 32 major British colours.  Copies of this keep appearing in second-hand bookshops at reasonable prices.

[Grey Beema]

7 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Grey Beema:   If you want to take this further look for a copy of British Aviation Colours or World War Two, published by Arms & Armour Press in 1986.  This contains a reproduction of the most important Air Ministry Orders covering camouflage schemes, the diagrams and key text from AP 2656A, and facsimile colour chips of 32 major British colours.  Copies of this keep appearing in second-hand bookshops at reasonable prices.

Thanks Graham, I think I will start looking around for one.

[Crimea River]

Copies available on amazon https://www.amazon.ca/British-Aviation-Colours-World-War/dp/0853682712

[Graham Boak]

Yes, at the usual inflated prices for out-of-print books, driven (I am told) by the algorithms used.   You should be able to get it considerably cheaper in the UK.

[Grey Beema]

It took Mrs GB about two years to track down a reasonably priced copy of Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939 to 1945 by Ray Sturtivant. In the end we won it on eBay being sold by an Oxfam store in the U.K...   Slowly, slowly catchy monkey...

[JasonC]

Another in favour of the find a photo and decide for yourself approach. One size most certainly does not fit all. The ones below are all fairly early war, yet still show significant difference in demarcation 'sharpness'. To my mind whether mats were used or not is somewhat irrelevant. What matters is the end results, and these clearly vary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NPL]

On 2/7/2019 at 5:30 PM, Crimea River said:

Copies available on amazon https://www.amazon.ca/British-Aviation-Colours-World-War/dp/0853682712

But look at the prices!

[Graham Boak]

Repeat posts 17 and 18.  I used to rely on the copy in the company library - but then I changed jobs.  It was of course out of print.  The answer is always buy such quality products when they appear, or you'll end up chasing second hand copies for years.  It is probably worthwhile contacting dedicated aviation bookshops and letting them know what you're after, so they can drop you a line when one comes in.