Meteor prototype upper-color question?

[Work In Progress]

Alas, Shacklady's Meteor book is demonstrably an unreliable witness in some regards . 

Dark Green / Dark Sea Grey is a legitimate Meteor upper camo combination, but much later on from the WW2 prototype / Meteor F.I era. It is what you will see on a post-war service F.4 or F.8, for example.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Work In Progress

[rossm]

Hmm, those examples do show up Mr.Shacklady but they are things that could have been taken from secondary, and incorrect, sources as "accepted wisdom" at the time (1962 was probably inside the limit for release of government documentation?). For the historical information on the acorn fairing I'm assuming he is more likely to be correct as he seems to have had access to primary documentation like meeting minutes and test flight reports etc., presumably from Gloster company archives? I must read the introduction to the book if there is one to see if sources are revealed.

[Work In Progress]

There was absolutely nothing even remotely confidential about the names of the colours being used on RAF fighters in 1962 or beforehand. Why would "accepted wisdom" contradict the everyday observations of anyone who had been to an RAF base air display? Which literally millions of people did from 1945 onwards. right through to the mid 70s when they started to scale back. In 1962 it was abundantly clear to anyone with eyes that the grey in fighter upper surface camo had changed from the wartime MSG to something significantly darker There's no excuse for it based on a notion of secrecy or censorship. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Work In Progress

[rossm]

34 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

There was absolutely nothing even remotely confidential about the names of the colours being used on RAF fighters in 1962 or beforehand. Why would "accepted wisdom" contradict the everyday observations of anyone who had been to an RAF base air display? Which literally millions of people did from 1945 onwards. right through to the mid 70s when they started to scale back. In 1962 it was abundantly clear to anyone with eyes that the grey in fighter upper surface camo had changed from the wartime MSG to something significantly darker There's no excuse for it based on a notion of secrecy or censorship. 

I was only just old enough to go to my first air display in the early 70s so it seems you have an advantage over me. However we were talking about Ocean Grey, not MSG and in the less than ideal light that I just checked the colour chips in there wasn't a lot of difference between Ocean Grey and Dark Sea Grey. Once something has been published (e.g. in Aircraft of the Fighting Powers as referred to previously) it can take a long time for the error to be removed from circulation if it looks vaguely plausible (Hampden TB anyone?). The names of colours used in 1962 may not have been confidential but I imagine the wartime ones were even though the colours were obvious to an observer. I'm not saying Shacklady was right, just thinking about why he was wrong and whether or not that discredits the book completely. At the moment I'm inclined to believe the historical narrative unless I can prove otherwise, which gives us a date for DG202 acquiring the acorn fairing which was the question I was trying to answer.

[Work In Progress]

Sorry yes, should have said Ocean Grey. You might have been a nipper in 1970 by Shacklady presumably wasn't! Anyway, make up your own mind about the acorn fairing, no-one's going to look at your model and call you out on it either way. 

[Work In Progress]

Why would the name of a colour be an official secret? The enemy could see the aeroplanes.  They had not only daily eyewitness reports but many, many samples to inspect. They had the wreckage of them all over Europe. You can't keep a widely used colour a secret!

[Graham Boak]

There were many things kept secret that the enemy already knew.  For example, the existence of the Whirlwind and later the Mosquito.  The principle was that if you didn't have a need to know, then you weren't told.  Who needed to know the proper names of colours in use, other than the guys actually having to paint the aircraft, if then?  Certainly not any civilian.

 

Forget the modern approach of everything being known or at least open to being known unless very specifically kept secret.  Everything was secret unless very specifically made public.

[Selwyn]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

There were many things kept secret that the enemy already knew.  For example, the existence of the Whirlwind and later the Mosquito.  The principle was that if you didn't have a need to know, then you weren't told.  Who needed to know the proper names of colours in use, other than the guys actually having to paint the aircraft, if then?  Certainly not any civilian.

 

Forget the modern approach of everything being known or at least open to being known unless very specifically kept secret.  Everything was secret unless very specifically made public.

The thing is that all these "Military"colours in use were in the public domain as they were put into BS 381C in the late 1940's IIRC and this document was not secret as it was comercially available to permit  manufacturers to produce the paint to the standard,

It certainly was not a military document as it included paints used by all government agencies. The colours included were used for example  by British Rail, GPO, London Transport ,  the Coast Guard, even the colours used on road signage were from this standard, and this information would be available to anyone who worked for these agencies or contractors who maintained equipment for them.

You could argue that   what colours were used on what particular aircraft were  classified, but it would not have been a problem for anyone to buy   the BS 381c colour fan deck and stand next to an aircraft at an airshow and compare.

I dont know if it is true but I have heard that it is quoted in some references that in the cold war Russian aircraft were camoflaged with paint to BS381c!

 

Selwyn

[rossm]

I don't think Ocean Grey appears in BS381

[Selwyn]

27 minutes ago, rossm said:

I don't think Ocean Grey appears in BS381

Ocen grey was not used  postwar superceded by Dark sea grey  which was included in the standard.

 

Selwyn

27 minutes ago, rossm said:

I don't think Ocean Grey appears in BS381

 

[Graham Boak]

What could be seen in the late 1940s was no great help in determining the colours of aircraft in earlier years.  Given that Ocean Grey was not available in the late 1940s but Dark Sea Grey was, and was in use as camouflage for RAF aircraft at the time, it would hardly be surprising that modellers and writers jumped to the assumption that this colour had been used earlier.  If that was the cause.

 

However Ocean Grey was known about early enough for the publication of the classic Harleyford's Aircraft Camouflage and Markings in 1956.  (OK, my copy is the sixth edition of 1966, but I suspect that's not relevant.)  This work was by Bruce Robertson, whom I believe had access to detailed camouflage information as part of his wartime employment.  There was an early much smaller booklet by Harleyford on camouflage, published in the late 1940s, but I don't have a copy.  It would be interesting to know if that mentioned Ocean Grey.

[viscount806x]

6 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

There were many things kept secret that the enemy already knew.  For example, the existence of the Whirlwind and later the Mosquito.  The principle was that if you didn't have a need to know, then you weren't told.  Who needed to know the proper names of colours in use, other than the guys actually having to paint the aircraft, if then?  Certainly not any civilian.

 

Forget the modern approach of everything being known or at least open to being known unless very specifically kept secret.  Everything was secret unless very specifically made public.

Additionally, it's possible that secrecy almost for it's own sake , may even have extended to the painters who very likely may have had bare metal cans with a stores reference number only as an identifier.

 

[Work In Progress]

Well, whatever consipracy theories you want to adopt in excusing the Shacklady Meteor book,  we are left with the following realities:

a) It  wrongly said DG202's uppers were Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey

b) There were plenty of people around in 1964 who knew that the topside grey on fighters had changed since 1943, and as an historian going into  publication as a subject expert  it's your  job to get to authoritative and correct sources rather than make unsupported and incorrect assertions

 

Whether you decide from those facts that you're happy with the quality of the other claims in the book  where he does not provide primary evidence, that's a matter for your own judgement, which you are welcome to either way.

[Graham Boak]

It'll be a rare book that doesn't contain at least one error.   Ruling out the remainder of the literature would be harsh and unhelpful, other than freeing up lots of time to do modelling.  In this particular point, it's fair to add that not every aviation writer sees colour schemes as being particularly important, certainly not to the extent a modeller does - and heaven knows there are plenty of modellers who don't give a toss and don't understand those who do.  He got it wrong there - so do we all, sometimes.  Finding such things is part of the purpose of joining in on this website.

[viscount806x]

Just a final one from me on DG202/G r.e.: the fin bullet and 'low vis' rear canopy. '202 sat around for some months waiting on engines and flew well after several other Meteors, FF 24/7/43. I read that the bullet fairing was retrofitted in August '43 so it did fly without it, if the informastion is correct.. Michael Daunt hated that rear canopy fairing for the poor rear visibilty so it is entirely likely that '202 never flew with it. There are lots of photos with this fitted but the probability is that this photography was purely to record the aircrafts completion. Likewise the Dark Earth paintwork removed/changed, if indeed it was ever applied..

 

 

[rossm]

40 minutes ago, viscount806x said:

Just a final one from me on DG202/G r.e.: the fin bullet and 'low vis' rear canopy. '202 sat around for some months waiting on engines and flew well after several other Meteors, FF 24/7/43. I read that the bullet fairing was retrofitted in August '43 so it did fly without it, if the informastion is correct.. Michael Daunt hated that rear canopy fairing for the poor rear visibilty so it is entirely likely that '202 never flew with it. There are lots of photos with this fitted but the probability is that this photography was purely to record the aircrafts completion. Likewise the Dark Earth paintwork removed/changed, if indeed it was ever applied..

 

 

DG202 was used for taxying trials with engines that were not powerful enough for flight considerably earlier, I'm away from my books but I think late 1942. Probably when it was completed prior to those there would have been official photos as with many other prototypes.

[tempestfan]

On 6/4/2019 at 11:21 AM, FPDPenguin said:

 

I noticed after clipping some bits off the sprues that a date mark was inside the fuselage. Seller had said that it was an old kit. Seems to be from the very first run. 

 

A nice looking Meteor, but I can relieve your doubts as it is from nowhere near the first run. An old mould but not an old kit. The (C) dates were retroactively added to older moulds from ca. 1973 onwards, and yours is even later as the tabs on the fuselage runner connectors were added by Humbrol, possibly for the 1986/7 boxing (the 1987 boxing of the Devastator was thus modified too, with devastating effects on the corrugated wing details).

 

[Mr T]

7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

What could be seen in the late 1940s was no great help in determining the colours of aircraft in earlier years.  Given that Ocean Grey was not available in the late 1940s but Dark Sea Grey was, and was in use as camouflage for RAF aircraft at the time, it would hardly be surprising that modellers and writers jumped to the assumption that this colour had been used earlier.  If that was the cause.

 

However Ocean Grey was known about early enough for the publication of the classic Harleyford's Aircraft Camouflage and Markings in 1956.  (OK, my copy is the sixth edition of 1966, but I suspect that's not relevant.)  This work was by Bruce Robertson, whom I believe had access to detailed camouflage information as part of his wartime employment.  There was an early much smaller booklet by Harleyford on camouflage, published in the late 1940s, but I don't have a copy.  It would be interesting to know if that mentioned Ocean Grey.

I think the book you are referring to covered the 1939- 42 period and some of the colour plates were reused in the 1907-54 book. The father of my first wife had a copy of the earlier book and ias I recall it made no mention of Ocean Grey (although it was 40 odd years ago), nor did any of the Aircraft of the Fighting Powers series, including the post war ones. In the 1944 Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, there was a copy of the MAP colour standards that did obviously include Ocean Grey. They were printed, but in many cases do not seem to be a bad match even 75 years later, at least my copy is not. 

 

[Seahawk]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 11:08 AM, Graham Boak said:

However Ocean Grey was known about early enough for the publication of the classic Harleyford's Aircraft Camouflage and Markings in 1956.  (OK, my copy is the sixth edition of 1966, but I suspect that's not relevant.)  This work was by Bruce Robertson, whom I believe had access to detailed camouflage information as part of his wartime employment.  There was an early much smaller booklet by Harleyford on camouflage, published in the late 1940s, but I don't have a copy.  It would be interesting to know if that mentioned Ocean Grey.

If you mean the slim volume by O G Thetford published by Harborough in 1946, it notes the change of camouflage but is at best hazy, at worst just plain wrong about what the new colour was:

 

"Camouflage Colours altered, Autumn 1941:  In the Autumn of 1941 the dark green and dark earth camouflage colours were abandoned on all day fighters operating from Great Britain in favour of dark green and dark sea grey or sea grey medium.  The colour of the undersides was also changed, and from that time onwards fighters were painted underneath in sea grey medium, a pale grey colour."  (page 22)

 

But then the book, while getting a lot right, is generally a bit hit and miss re colours (eg "In September 1941 Coastal Command fighters altered their markings.  Upper surfaces were camouflaged dark green and pale grey and undersurfaces became pale grey." (page 26))  A book not without interest but a shaky basis for the exposition of authoritative camouflage and markings doctrine nowadays.

 

 

[OneEighthBit]

Just chiming in my two cents as I wanted to build a prototype model myself and happen to be a volunteer at the Jet Age Museum at Gloucester where we have a lot of original Meteor/Gloster stuff.

 

Someone mentioned the official orders for colours (shortened for brevity):

 

• A.513  Camouflage Colouring and Markings of Aircraft (10 July 1941).
  • A.M.0. A.926/40, as amended by A.30/41 and A.157/41, is super­seded by the instructions contained in this order, which take effect immediately.

  • 3. R.A.F. landplanes.

    • (i) Operational aircraft for service at home.

      • (a) Temperate land scheme camouflage, consisting of two colours, dark green and dark earth, is to be used for the upper surfaces of all aircraft, except those mentioned in sub-para. (c) below.
      • (c)  Night fighters are to be coloured matt black (special night) on all surface
    • (viii)  Prototype, and experimental aircraft.
      • (a) The upper surface, to be camouflaged in accordance with the instructions contained in sub­-para. (i) (a) above.

 

• A.664  Camouflage, Colouring and Markings of Aircraft (2 July 1942).

  • (AMOs A513/41 and A687/41 cancelled)

    • 1.  For convenience and easy reference, the camouflage, colouring and marking schemes authorised for R.A.F., naval and civil aircraft are set out in tables at appendices I, II and III, respectively, to this order. 
    • 3. Camouflage.
      • (i) The temperate land scheme consists of dark green and dark earth.
      • (ii)   The temperate sea scheme consists of dark slate grey and extra dark sea grey.
      • (iii)   The day fighter scheme consists of dark green and ocean grey.
      • (iv)  The desert scheme consists of dark earth and middle stone.

 

• A.664/42  APPENDIX 1

  • (Amended to A1096/42, issued 8 Oct 1942 and A1377/42 issued 24 December 1942)

  • 7. Prototype and experimental aircraft and aircraft attached to experimental establishments

    • (i) Power driven

      • Upper surface camouflage - Temperate land scheme, temperate sea scheme or day fighter scheme

      • Under surfaces camouflage - Yellow

My personal opinion based on the above is that the prototypes would have been painted in the day fighter scheme of grey/green given the official orders from 2nd July 1942 and given that it was a prototype of a day fighter.🤷‍♂️

 

We've got the front part of a prototype canopy at the museum but I never looked that closely at it. Next time I'm over I'll look for traces of paint on it.

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by OneEighthBit

[AaCee26]

Hi all,

 

After reading this threat I'm just wondering the DG202/G's current colours, dark green/dark earth on top. Has it been re-painted sometime and if so, when? Can we trust the colours of it or not?

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

[Troy Smith]

37 minutes ago, AaCee26 said:

Has it been re-painted sometime and if so, when? Can we trust the colours of it or not?

yes, and ...hmm, not sure...

from https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/85-A-64-Meteor-Prototype-DG202.pdf

Quote

Mar 58 Refurbished for display at the main gate under the direction of G/C Maurice L.’Larry’ Gaine, C.O. of RAF Yatesbury prior to an AOC’s inspection. Repainted by P.A.Brown Photos - Flight 14 Mar 58 p.349; The Gloster Meteor (002062) p.28; Meteor (016776) p.10. Painted silver overall with the maintenance serial 5758M on rear fuselage but lacked engines.

Jun 58 By this date the prototype marking and original serial DG202 were carried when Mr Brown noticed the earlier markings when prepping the aircraft for repainting and decided to restore the original markings. Photos - RAF Gate Guards (Simpson) p.190; Meteor (016776) p.11; Aeroplane Monthly May 98 p.61; Aeromilitaria Summer 2009 p.69; Warpaint Series No 22– Gloster Meteor (Butler) p.1. The aircraft was noticed by a former Dowty employee who realised the aircraft’s’ historical significance. The authorities were alerted and two Welland engines (one of them s/n 271) were found at Cosford and the aircraft was fully refurbished by RAF Yatesbury. Nov 61 Replaced on Yatesbury gate by Venom NF Mk 3 WX905 by this date until the camp closed in 1962. Remained stored in the open at Yatesbury for some time. Photo - Air Britain Digest Mar 63 p.29.

1965 Transferred to RAF Cosford as part of the Air Historical Branch Collection. Photos at Cosford - Airfix Magazine Dec 66 p.143 (Repainted in camouflage colours); Aircraft Illustrated May 74 p.208. Occasionally displayed at ‘Battle of Britain ‘ open days at RAF Gaydon, Warwicks in the late 1960s.. Photo - Meteor (016776) p.11; Warpaint Series No 22 – Gloster Meteor (Butler) p.2. The aircraft remains on display at The Royal Air Force Museum, Cosford Oct 98 Survey, partial stripping and restoration work of engines and airframe underway at Cosford. Photo - Aeroplane Monthly Jan 1999 p.9. 30 Jun 03 By road to RAF Fairford, Glos for the Royal International Air Tattoo for display in the ‘100 Years of Flight’ Exhibition. Photo during dismantling for transport; The Flying M Yearbook 2003 p.15. Photos on display; Aircraft Illustrated September 2003 p.56, June 2011 pp.84-85; Aeroplane October 2003 p.10; Flypast Airshow 2005 Supplement p.24. 20 Aug 03 Returned to RAFM Cosford by road. Aug 11 Dismantled and temporarily stored in MBCC, RAFM Cosford. 26 Sep 11 By road to RAFM Hendon for further display in ‘Milestones’gallery. Photos on display – Aeroplane December 2011 p.6; Aircraft Magazine December 2011 p.11; The Flying M Yearbook 2011 p.11.

 

[Work In Progress]

16 hours ago, AaCee26 said:

Hi all,

 

After reading this threat I'm just wondering the DG202/G's current colours, dark green/dark earth on top. Has it been re-painted sometime and if so, when? Can we trust the colours of it or not?

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

It has had multiple repaints and is on at least its second set of wings. When you say "trust", what do you mean? It is what it is: you can build a model of it as it is now and be 100% accurate and authentic by direct reference. If you want to build a model of it when it was different colours and/or in a different airframe configuration then you need to start by deciding, and specifying, what occasion in its long life you want to represent. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Work In Progress

[AaCee26]

2 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

 If you want to build a model of it when it was different colours and/or in a different airframe configuration then you need to start by deciding, and specifying, what occasion in its long life you want to represent. 

Hi!

 

Ok, point taken. I mean during it's early prototype period during WW2 era.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

[Graham Boak]

If we go back to posting 14, there is a photo showing what is argued as being an early view of the prototype.  I'd point out that the yellow on the roundel and on the P marking appears dark, as does the red of the roundel and fin flash.  In which case I'd expect Dark Earth also to appear dark, because of its red content.  The camouflage colours however show a high contrast, which I believe strongly suggests that the aircraft at this stage was in Dark Green/Ocean Grey.