Myth of the Red Crowbar

[Paul Lucas]

I don't have a definitive answer to this question, but there was a major revision to both the internal and external colour schemes of British military aircraft with regard to the marking of escape doors, hatches and break-in panels in February 1946. Whilst the markings are described in detail, AMO A.150/46 makes no mention of how various items of safety equipment such as crowbars and axes are to be finished.

 

There is no mention of painting the crowbar in Mod. No. Spitfire 1749 of August 1946 that dealt with the application of the new Break-in markings to Spitfires either. 

 

The closest I can get is AP 970 AL 42 of November 1947 where Chapter 107 'Operational Markings' Para. 2.2.1 states that

"In those parts of the aeroplane interior...where a Matt black finish is required by Chapter 100, no coloured markings shall be applied except on emergency controls. These controls shall be either outlined or lettered in red, or, if too small for lettering, completely painted red.'

 

This was not new at this time, so I suspect that the instruction to paint crowbars and axes red would probably have been given sometime in 1946, at about the same time that the new Break-in markings were introduced.

[FinnAndersen]

3 hours ago, Daniel Cox said:

 

Hi Bertie,

 

You are mistaken. The first image is from one of several archival Kodachrome colour slides, that show 222 Squadron, personnel and aircraft at North Weald.

 

IWM COL 191

 

While the same also applies to the last one as well, being from one of a few archival Kodachrome colour slides, that show 64 Squadron, personnel and aircraft at Fairlop.

 

IWM TR 517

 

Cheers,

 

 

Daniel.

If only all pictures was taken like this during the war.... 

 

On the other hand, then we would not have much to discuss 🙂

 

/Finn

[spitfire]

From Edgar.

 

 

 

On the door 23-1-42; before that (3-2-41) beside the seat (right side,) and it could have been plain steel, bronze green, or black, never red (until post-war.)
Edgar.

 

Posted 25 April 2010 - 09:54 PM

It was retro-fitted, to all Marks, but not until those dates.
Edgar

 

The crowbar's an odd one; stowage was supplied from February, 1941, but the bar wasn't actually fitted until November. I haven't figured that one out, yet. Quite right about the colour(s,) too. An ex-pilot told me that, during the war, he'd seen them black, green, silver, but never red. H & S again, I suppose.
Daz, you're half right; the XIIs with MB serials were taken from the VIII production line, while the EN series started life as VCs, and were sandwiched into the IX production lines, thus keeping the fixed tailwheel.
If anyone fancies a "what-if" that did get built, at least in mock-up form, the prototype, DP845, was fitted with 6 cannon, and standard wing tips.
Edgar

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[Bozothenutter]

I'm assuming crowbars were available everywhere in the UK, they are generally not made from special steels (medium steel is mentioned on wiki)

they were either painted or oil blackened. I can't imagine that to speed up the process or something they would skip the last step (well maybe paint)

Though civil service moves in mysterious ways, a special 'spec' seems unlikely too.

A untreated crowbar in UK weather will rust in milliseconds...

So if there is evidence of untreaded crowbars, it has to be the material?

A short Google throws up Aluminium crowbars exist, which would make sense in a way, as they were not being used, so wear was not a problem.

Did they exist in the 30's - 40's?

Anybody have air ministry purchasing archives on these? 

 

found something!

https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/lockdales/catalogue-id-lo10219/lot-97559da2-b17c-4bd6-8ff4-b02e00bb515f

 

 

If this is the real thing, it seems the crowbar was hollow pipe, with welded on tips. 

Galvanised is another finish option

So weight was indeed an issue.

 

http://spitfirespares.co.uk/Website products 514/crow bar 1 large.jpg

 

http://spitfirespares.co.uk/Website products 514/crow bar 3 large.jpg

 

 

 

[ckw]

4 hours ago, Bertie McBoatface said:

I guess it’s the way my phone displays the images that misled me. 

Don't forget that any original colour slide/photo you see online must have gone through a scanning process to digitise it. Scanning is an art in its own right with all kinds of opportunities to adjust colour balance, sharpness, contrast etc. To my eye these K64 scans look a little enhanced in both sharpness and contrast - though not overly so. It could also be that the original scans were done to a very high resolution (for print perhaps), then further processed to reduce the file to something more manageable for online use. Size reduction often involves additional sharpening.

 

In short, any 'original' photos you see online are at least 1, probably more, steps away from the original and what you see will be based on the skill and equipment of whoever did the digitisation.

 

And don't get me started on the effect various display devices can have!!

 

Cheers

 

Colin 

[Phoenix44]

1 hour ago, FinnAndersen said:

If only all pictures was taken like this during the war.... 

 

On the other hand, then we would not have much to discuss 🙂

 

/Finn

Sadly even then, there'd be problems. Kodachrome is beautiful but not necessarily "accurate" across every colour in every light. And professionals claim the different speeds had different colour properties. Ektachrome was said to be more accurate, colour-wise. Kodachrome was essentially a black and white film with colour added during processing. It was produced to be high contrast and very vibrant, which is why we like it but that means exposure needed to be spot on and colours tended to be saturated. Its processing was specialised and could go wrong. Kodachrome is very stable if kept in darkness but fades and changes colour otherwise, particularly if the slides are projected - Kodachrome had a 1 hour limit before fading started. Finally, digitisation of Kodachrome has well-known problems in retaining the colours of the slide, with a blue cast often being introduced. It does give us some lovely shots though. 

[FinnAndersen]

1 hour ago, Phoenix44 said:

Sadly even then, there'd be problems. Kodachrome is beautiful but not necessarily "accurate" across every colour in every light. And professionals claim the different speeds had different colour properties. Ektachrome was said to be more accurate, colour-wise. Kodachrome was essentially a black and white film with colour added during processing. It was produced to be high contrast and very vibrant, which is why we like it but that means exposure needed to be spot on and colours tended to be saturated. Its processing was specialised and could go wrong. Kodachrome is very stable if kept in darkness but fades and changes colour otherwise, particularly if the slides are projected - Kodachrome had a 1 hour limit before fading started. Finally, digitisation of Kodachrome has well-known problems in retaining the colours of the slide, with a blue cast often being introduced. It does give us some lovely shots though. 

Colour is of course a very troublesome entity and you are quite right, these photo's may well be somewhat off when compared to paint samples, however when I see a roundel, I know that it most likely was yellow, blue, white and red, and I can identify these colours even if distorted by the photographic process

 

I was more interested in the level of detail of the photo. Most likely it was taken by a professional photographer using a 6X6 system camera. It does not get much better.

 

/Finn

[rob Lyttle]

There was me, happy in blissful ignorance for all these years thinking-- assuming-- that it was a handle, you know like the push bar fitted to a fire door.....🙄

So it's a crowbar, eh?!  Who knew??

 

 

Everyone except ME, that's who 🤣🧚‍♀️

My G-IRTY bar is red as per the current state of regulations 

[georgeusa]

23 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Red was the common colour post war and/or on warbirds.

And in black/white photos if it's not grey green or sliver,  it could easily be interpreted as red if that's what you expect.    It then become a "fact" and sticks, and this is backed up by colour warbird photos.

 

This seems like the most logical answer as most model manufacturers used museum aircraft as the basis for their molds.  Might have just relied on the colors too.  Thanks, Troy.  Also thanks for all of the pictures and the numerous times you have provided insight on a myriad of topics that I came away learning something.

 

22 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

 

Bear in mind that most surviving airworthy Spitfires have really only spent a small proportion of their total lives WITHOUT red crowbars. Even those still operated by the RAF (here's the BBMF's P7350 for example) . So it is hardly a myth

 

Like Troy, your supposition regarding warbirds and post-war aircraft seems the most logical.

 

22 hours ago, Admiral Puff said:

I think (but don't quote me ...) that the red stems from an ICAO requirement that emergency equipment be painted red, which didn't come into effect until well after the Second Great Unpleasantness. Thus wartime aircraft would not normally carry red crowbars - they would either match the surrounding interior or be natural metal.

 

Your conclusions reflect those of Troy and Work in Progress.

 

22 hours ago, PatG said:

Red crow bars are simply a recent addition for airworthy/restored Spits to make them more visible in the event that a pilot has to use it to facilitate egress. It was not uncommon for war time aircraft not to carry them at all, and if they were they could be interior Grey/Green or simply left unpainted, so you have a some latitude!

 

Thanks Pat for your insight on this as it jives with what others are basing the red color originations.

 

21 hours ago, noelh said:

It is post war thing. I don't know if its a regulation or convention. A lot of aircraft emergency equipment is red purely for visibility. Some  aircraft carry a crash axe and many I've seen are red. The crowbar in preserved Spitfires are red because it is after all a piece of emergency equipment. 

 

Thanks for participating Noelh.  I realize this is just an absurd, fairly meaningless question, but this is how my mind works.   

 

18 hours ago, Lightningboy2000 said:

I'm wondering if it might have been me who inspired this thread? I put my hands up, I stumbled & fell into into the fictitious world of WW2 red crowbars. I'm just forgetful like that, but thing is, do I paint over it with the correct colour or do I just leave it. I am going to be entering it into a competition (that I'm taking votes for) this evening! It might get the corrective treatment as we have a VERY knowledgeable Spitfire connoisseur who will definitely point out everything I've done wrong. In a nice way though as he's a gentleman. Next time I will do a nice realistic job & it will likely be another Eduard kit as they are very nice kits. 

 

You are correct, your post was the inspiration for my somewhat off the cuff question.  I would change the color given it will go to a competition and you never know what will put your model over the top of the others in the competition.

 

12 hours ago, Daniel Cox said:

You are mistaken. The first image is from one of several archival Kodachrome colour slides, that show 222 Squadron, personnel and aircraft at North Weald.

 

 

Daniel, thanks for your input as to how period color photos can be a little off of reality.  I used to dabble in color developing, but my knowledge is pale to yours.  I appreciate your comments.

[gingerbob]

10 hours ago, Paul Lucas said:

This was not new at this time, so I suspect that the instruction to paint crowbars and axes red would probably have been given sometime in 1946, at about the same time that the new Break-in markings were introduced.

 

Makes sense: "Well, now that that's finally over, we can get back to mandating important things like what colour to paint (or not to paint) an aircraft's crowbar.  Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, now that we've finally gotten that rear fuel tank sorted out in the Spitfire, let's send a memo saying that it is not to be used without express permission."

[georgeusa]

10 hours ago, Paul Lucas said:

I don't have a definitive answer to this question, but there was a major revision to both the internal and external colour schemes of British military aircraft with regard to the marking of escape doors, hatches and break-in panels in February 1946. Whilst the markings are described in detail, AMO A.150/46 makes no mention of how various items of safety equipment such as crowbars and axes are to be finished.

 

There is no mention of painting the crowbar in Mod. No. Spitfire 1749 of August 1946 that dealt with the application of the new Break-in markings to Spitfires either. 

 

The closest I can get is AP 970 AL 42 of November 1947 where Chapter 107 'Operational Markings' Para. 2.2.1 states that

"In those parts of the aeroplane interior...where a Matt black finish is required by Chapter 100, no coloured markings shall be applied except on emergency controls. These controls shall be either outlined or lettered in red, or, if too small for lettering, completely painted red.'

 

This was not new at this time, so I suspect that the instruction to paint crowbars and axes red would probably have been given sometime in 1946, at about the same time that the new Break-in markings were introduced.

 

Of all the posts I have done on this fine website, this is not the one I thought you would make a comment on.  I am in awe of your work and amazed at the research you do.  I have learned so much from you posts and other written commentaries.  Thanks for gracing my little dribble of a post.

 

9 hours ago, spitfire said:

From Edgar.

 

 

 

On the door 23-1-42; before that (3-2-41) beside the seat (right side,) and it could have been plain steel, bronze green, or black, never red (until post-war.)
Edgar.

 

Posted 25 April 2010 - 09:54 PM

It was retro-fitted, to all Marks, but not until those dates.
Edgar

 

The crowbar's an odd one; stowage was supplied from February, 1941, but the bar wasn't actually fitted until November. I haven't figured that one out, yet. Quite right about the colour(s,) too. An ex-pilot told me that, during the war, he'd seen them black, green, silver, but never red. H & S again, I suppose.
Daz, you're half right; the XIIs with MB serials were taken from the VIII production line, while the EN series started life as VCs, and were sandwiched into the IX production lines, thus keeping the fixed tailwheel.
If anyone fancies a "what-if" that did get built, at least in mock-up form, the prototype, DP845, was fitted with 6 cannon, and standard wing tips.
Edgar

 

Dennis, thanks for looking this up and providing comments from Edgar on the subject.  He was the expert.  I miss his posts and him.

 

9 hours ago, Bozothenutter said:

I'm assuming crowbars were available everywhere in the UK, they are generally not made from special steels (medium steel is mentioned on wiki)

they were either painted or oil blackened. I can't imagine that to speed up the process or something they would skip the last step (well maybe paint)

Though civil service moves in mysterious ways, a special 'spec' seems unlikely too.

A untreated crowbar in UK weather will rust in milliseconds...

So if there is evidence of untreaded crowbars, it has to be the material?

A short Google throws up Aluminium crowbars exist, which would make sense in a way, as they were not being used, so wear was not a problem.

Did they exist in the 30's - 40's?

Anybody have air ministry purchasing archives on these? 

 

found something!

https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/lockdales/catalogue-id-lo10219/lot-97559da2-b17c-4bd6-8ff4-b02e00bb515f

 

 

If this is the real thing, it seems the crowbar was hollow pipe, with welded on tips. 

Galvanised is another finish option

So weight was indeed an issue.

 

http://spitfirespares.co.uk/Website products 514/crow bar 1 large.jpg

 

http://spitfirespares.co.uk/Website products 514/crow bar 3 large.jpg

 

 

 

 

That is the most clear example of a crowbar that may have flown the skies of England during the war.  Thanks for sharing this.

 

7 hours ago, ckw said:

Don't forget that any original colour slide/photo you see online must have gone through a scanning process to digitise it. Scanning is an art in its own right with all kinds of opportunities to adjust colour balance, sharpness, contrast etc. To my eye these K64 scans look a little enhanced in both sharpness and contrast - though not overly so. It could also be that the original scans were done to a very high resolution (for print perhaps), then further processed to reduce the file to something more manageable for online use. Size reduction often involves additional sharpening.

 

In short, any 'original' photos you see online are at least 1, probably more, steps away from the original and what you see will be based on the skill and equipment of whoever did the digitisation.

 

And don't get me started on the effect various display devices can have!!

 

Colin, I appreciate your comments regarding the changes that can occur when a photo is transferred to another media.  Thanks for commenting.

 

7 hours ago, Phoenix44 said:

Sadly even then, there'd be problems. Kodachrome is beautiful but not necessarily "accurate" across every colour in every light. And professionals claim the different speeds had different colour properties. Ektachrome was said to be more accurate, colour-wise. Kodachrome was essentially a black and white film with colour added during processing. It was produced to be high contrast and very vibrant, which is why we like it but that means exposure needed to be spot on and colours tended to be saturated. Its processing was specialised and could go wrong. Kodachrome is very stable if kept in darkness but fades and changes colour otherwise, particularly if the slides are projected - Kodachrome had a 1 hour limit before fading started. Finally, digitisation of Kodachrome has well-known problems in retaining the colours of the slide, with a blue cast often being introduced. It does give us some lovely shots though. 

 

Thanks for the mini-seminar on the effects of different types of film.  I would imagine some of the young members of this forum have no clue about film in cameras.

 

1 hour ago, rob Lyttle said:

There was me, happy in blissful ignorance for all these years thinking-- assuming-- that it was a handle, you know like the push bar fitted to a fire door.....🙄

So it's a crowbar,

 

Rob, take heart in that everyone has made what they think is a bonehead mistake or assumption.  On one of my builds here I had weathered an engine compartment of a Revell Huey and thought I had done a bang up job.  Nigel Heath (man, how I miss him, his builds and his posts, such a good friend) made the very polite comment that two large objects in my engine compartment appeared to be injection posts and not really a part of the engine.  I though they went well with the industrial look of my engine.  

[Lightningboy2000]

6 hours ago, georgeusa said:

 

This seems like the most logical answer as most model manufacturers used museum aircraft as the basis for their molds.  Might have just relied on the colors too.  Thanks, Troy.  Also thanks for all of the pictures and the numerous times you have provided insight on a myriad of topics that I came away learning something.

 

 

Like Troy, your supposition regarding warbirds and post-war aircraft seems the most logical.

 

 

Your conclusions reflect those of Troy and Work in Progress.

 

 

Thanks Pat for your insight on this as it jives with what others are basing the red color originations.

 

 

Thanks for participating Noelh.  I realize this is just an absurd, fairly meaningless question, but this is how my mind works.   

 

 

You are correct, your post was the inspiration for my somewhat off the cuff question.  I would change the color given it will go to a competition and you never know what will put your model over the top of the others in the competition.

 

 

Daniel, thanks for your input as to how period color photos can be a little off of reality.  I used to dabble in color developing, but my knowledge is pale to yours.  I appreciate your comments.

I'll do it & I'll let you know how the competition goes. One other thing, I did originally paint it in a metal shade! 😆

[Phoenix44]

On 12/12/2023 at 15:36, FinnAndersen said:

Colour is of course a very troublesome entity and you are quite right, these photo's may well be somewhat off when compared to paint samples, however when I see a roundel, I know that it most likely was yellow, blue, white and red, and I can identify these colours even if distorted by the photographic process

 

I was more interested in the level of detail of the photo. Most likely it was taken by a professional photographer using a 6X6 system camera. It does not get much better.

 

/Finn

True, but it might also be a slow film - Kodachrome was I believe well below what we now call 100 and was very finely grained.

[noelh]

10 hours ago, Phoenix44 said:

True, but it might also be a slow film - Kodachrome was I believe well below what we now call 100 and was very finely grained.

Kodachrome was gold standard at one stage. I used both 25 and 64 and they were the best before the advent of digital. The only downfall was having to send them to Kodak for development. Other brands I could develop myself at home. 

Another last art that. Developing slides and film.

 

[Chuck1945]

My Mom took a coach tour of the Western USA in either 1939 or 40. She had a Kodak 35mm camera and took lots of Kodachrome slides, I think I recall her saying that film was something like ASA 12. 

[KevinK]

It was indeed around that speed: the original Kodachrome, marketed from 1935/6 to 1962 in 8/16/35 mm formats was 10 ASA, increasing to the dizzying speed of 12 ASA by 1955.

 

Kodachrome sheet film for large format cameras was as low as 8 ASA.

 

Kodachrome II, introduced in 1961 was 25 ASA.

Edited December 15, 2023 by KevinK
Wrong date

[Old Phart]

With something like 20,000 Spitfires made, isn't it reasonable that factories just painted the things with whatever paint they had on hand? Indeed, it seems like a product that'd be contracted out and so shape and colour are likely to vary slightly/somewhat.

[Wez]

5 hours ago, Old Phart said:

With something like 20,000 Spitfires made, isn't it reasonable that factories just painted the things with whatever paint they had on hand? Indeed, it seems like a product that'd be contracted out and so shape and colour are likely to vary slightly/somewhat.

 

That's not really how government procurement works.

 

These crowbars would have been found in a myriad of aircraft types - they're just more prominent in Spitfires due to their location so we know they were fitted on them, the crowbars would have been procured en-masse for use across all aircraft and provided as Government Furnished Equipment or GFE.  Supermarine would not be expected to go out and design and procure their own, bespoke, Spitfire crowbar.

 

The specifications for these things would have provided the acceptable finish for these items, it may have specified a range of finishes but what it wouldn't do is just specify ANY old paint.

 

 

[MilneBay]

Coming to a cinema complex near you the positively last movie in the Indiana Jones franchise.

 

"Indiana Jones and the Myth of the Red Crowbar"

 

It will have you on the edge of your cockpit ... 😵

[Work In Progress]

On 12/12/2023 at 7:27 PM, gingerbob said:

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, now that we've finally gotten that rear fuel tank sorted out in the Spitfire, let's send a memo saying that it is not to be used without express permission.

Indeed, along with the reintroduction of low flying regulations, under-wing serials and lots of other flight safety measures necessarily outweighed by purely military priorities during an actual shooting war. However, in a lot of other ways they could and should have moved faster, and the early post-war accident rate was far too high in several entirely preventable ways, a subject on which I am writing at length at the moment

[Work In Progress]

1 hour ago, Wez said:

 

That's not really how government procurement works.

 

These crowbars would have been found in a myriad of aircraft types - they're just more prominent in Spitfires due to their location so we know they were fitted on them, the crowbars would have been procured en-masse for use across all aircraft and provided as Government Furnished Equipment or GFE.  Supermarine would not be expected to go out and design and procure their own, bespoke, Spitfire crowbar.

 

The specifications for these things would have procured the acceptable finish for these items, it may have specified a range of finishes but what it wouldn't do is just specify ANY old paint.

 

 

I agree, especially for anything actually necessary for flight and/or deemed necessary for crew safety. The only thing I can think of offhand in Allied WW2 military aviation procurement when a manufacturer said "anything will do" is the toilet roll holder on the B-24. When one of the alternate manufacturers was setting up its B-24 production line, they asked Consolidated why there were no drawings for it, and there were none because it was in fact something they'd sent a bloke out to buy from hardware stores. This is a notable occurrence not for its comedy value, but for its rarity.

[Phoenix44]

On 12/12/2023 at 19:27, gingerbob said:

 

Makes sense: "Well, now that that's finally over, we can get back to mandating important things like what colour to paint (or not to paint) an aircraft's crowbar.  Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, now that we've finally gotten that rear fuel tank sorted out in the Spitfire, let's send a memo saying that it is not to be used without express permission."

I think I downloaded this originally from Britmodeller but I can't remember who posted it:

[noelh]

6 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

I agree, especially for anything actually necessary for flight and/or deemed necessary for crew safety. The only thing I can think of offhand in Allied WW2 military aviation procurement when a manufacturer said "anything will do" is the toilet roll holder on the B-24. When one of the alternate manufacturers was setting up its B-24 production line, they asked Consolidated why there were no drawings for it, and there were none because it was in fact something they'd sent a bloke out to buy from hardware stores. This is a notable occurrence not for its comedy value, but for its rarity.

Reminds me of the scandal of the built in coffee maker on the Lockheed C5A. It was designed to survive a 40g load. Some felt this was excessive. But someone pointed out that after a 40g landing, you would definitely need a coffee.🤣

Edited December 15, 2023 by noelh

[Chuck1945]

4 hours ago, noelh said:

Reminds me of the scandal of the built in coffee maker on the Lockheed C5A. It was designed to survive a 40g load. Some felt this was excessive. But someone pointed out that after a 40g landing, you would definitely need a coffee.🤣

Or something stronger…🍺

[Work In Progress]

My  rules of field selection for outlandings in gliders and precautionary or forced landings in powered types

1. level with clear approaches

2. clear of standing crops

3. road along at least one edge

4. nearby pub