P-40 Colors and American Manufacturers

[Bruce Archer]

Hi All!

There are those who will recite official specifacations as gospel. How ever they do not take into consideration the mentality of the Americam manufacturers. Perhaps this may help explaian whhy there are so many anomilies found in BPC and Lend-Lease Aircraft. One must remember the American manufacturers were not like the manufacuteres in say the UK. They were, and sort of are, more independent from the government.

By 1940 American manufacturers were rapidly becoming overwhelmed with orders for military, and civilian aircraft. Expansion was started, but new factories were at least a year away, and more likly more. Almost ( note thre word almost!) all of the manufacturers took the stand they would not allow paint delays ( remember the paint manufacturers were now swamped with camo finish orders also) affect production. So if the colors were off, but "close enough" it went out the door with the attitude "if they don't take it someone else will". Companies either stayed with paint manufacturers who could supply paint consistantly ( Grumman and North American) or those with the best "deal" ( Brewster and Curtiss).

If you look at Grumman they took some pains to supply the correct scheme on aircraft supplied to the FAA. Colors closly matching Extra Dark Sea Grey, Dark Slate Grey an d Sky ( differences in the Sky were due to batch mixing, and to mixing at the factory) and Grumman continued to use these colors even though the "official spec" was issued to use the "eqivalent colors" of Olive Drab , Sea Grey (US color) and Light Grey ( as in the original spec). North American on the other hand consistantly delivered Mustangs to the RAF in Brown, Green and Light Grey. This practice continued into late P-51B/C production and may have continued into P-51D/K production. There has been no color photographic evidence found to show Mustangs in Olive Drab/Sea Grey/Light Grey camo. Why , it appears that the paint supplier could consitantly and reliably suppy those colors. And with the USAAF trying to get as many Mustangs as possible, if the RAF did not accept them, the USAAF would.

Now to Brewster. God only knows what they really used and why. They were not the best run company (the only factory shut down during the war which was producing "combat aircraft").Brewster needed to shop for the best price due to the almost constant mis-managment. Unfortunately almost akll of the records have been lost. But Buffalos were photographed with Sky-style undersurfaces and undersurfaces of a light grey. As were Corsairs. But it does appear that the final scheme may have been FAA friendly.

Now to Curtiss. As I have beed alluding to, someone has acquired paint records from the Buffalo paint shop. Multiple suppliers have been named in the records, and multiple paintnames have been mentioned. There were at least three greys used on the undersides of P-40 type aircraft for export. At least one I have been informed is a Greyish grey, not at all a "sky" type grey. What this person is doing is trying to identify which colors were used on what batches, then identify the colors themselves. One consistancy has been noticed, the green ( which looks very close to US Medium Green and RAAF Foliage Green ) used for the uppersurface on Camo'd P-40s was DuPont Dark Green, almost exclusively.

So to assume that just because an "official" spec called for a certian color, if there were delays or shortages in getting that color, another color would have been and was substituted to get the a/c out the door.

I am putting on my Nomex suit.

Bruce

[Nick Millman]

Hi Bruce

All well and fine but as I have mentioned many times before you need more evidence than this. Much of what you write is anecdotal and disregards both the documented citation of the Du Pont colours as "match colours" by the BAC (identified by Dana Bell), plus their acceptance criteria and procedures. The RAE tested American types in service with the RAF and the extant documentation includes comments on paint colours. None of it refers to light grey which would probably have been picked up bearing in mind that MAP and AM wanted Sky!

I don't doubt there were many variations in the actual colours applied and considerable leeway in the acceptance. But what has been hypothesised is that a match to Sky Grey using US Aircraft Gray (or similar) was deliberately but inadvertently made because the American manufacturers misunderstood the actual appearance of the Sky paint required. That hypothesis is not borne out by the documentary evidence which includes (amongst many other items) the actual Du Pont 71 series colour card communicated to the American manufacturers by the BAC, a copy of which I have even posted on my blog. And I have seen no evidence for that hypothesis beyond the interpretation of a few colour photographs. Remember, this colour card shows the American manufactured paint matched to British requirements and there is no Sky Grey or US Aircraft Gray on it. Dana Bell has evidenced how it was used as a "match card" for the British.

The TSS did not require "light grey" as an undersurface colour but rather Sky, which is why it was maintained in the joint standards as an American production colour when Light Grey wasn't. Colour photographs of Corsairs, for example, do not show a colour like light grey but rather a colour like Duck Egg Blue. Sure, they can be "corrected" (photo-shopped) to make them look more grey.

You wrote:-

"But Buffalos were photographed with Sky-style undersurfaces and undersurfaces of a light grey."

Were they? Where are these photographs, presumably in colour, or are you interpreting the shades in monochrome images?

And, btw I personally do not believe official specifications were gospel, even though you repeatedly attribute that to me. But I certainly do prefer to reference official specifications as a form of evidence (to be assessed in conjunction with other evidence) in the absence of anything else.

As for the different names paint suppliers used at Buffalo. Hearsay. Let's see some real evidence for the actual colours used beyond just the names and descriptions.

Regards

Nick

Edited May 11, 2009 by Nick Millman

[Steven Eisenman]

One issue that many who are not from the United States do not appreciate is the "fly by the seat of one's pants" or "do what is expedient and perhaps less costly" attitude of US manufacturing, especially during a war.

Perhaps it is that our industry was more expansive, varied, and less subject to government oversight that allowed for "corner cutting".

Because of the diversity, specs mean a bit less than perhaps they do in the UK.

This coupled with the attitude that even if the spec is not met, the Brits won't return it. They'll either use as is or repaint, there is a war on after all.

There will be an excellent and well researched volume coming out on the B-24 which will show that there were no specs followed across the production. Five different manufacturers and four modification depots and multiple manufacturers of paint.

Specs and paint cards are nice as a standard, but even the USAAF knew that they were not worth much more than the cards the specs were printed on.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Steven Eisenman

[Nick Millman]

"One issue that many who are not from the United States do not appreciate is the "fly by the seat of one's pants" or "do what is expedient and perhaps less costly" attitude of US manufacturing, especially during a war."

Evidence for both the lack of appreciation by those not from the United States and for the approach taken by US manufacturing specifically as it relates to aircraft manufactured for the British?

"Perhaps it is that our industry was more expansive, varied, and less subject to government oversight that allowed for "corner cutting".

Because of the diversity, specs mean a bit less than perhaps they do in the UK."

Evidence?

"This coupled with the attitude that even if the spec is not met, the Brits wont return. They'll either use as is or repaint, there is a war on after all."

Evidence? (And, btw, your statement appears to completely ignore the reason for and existence of the aircraft modification acceptance centres and processes on both sides of the Atlantic - as well as the work of the joint committee in co-ordinating paint requirements - suggest you research these by actually examining the extant archives - photographs and opinion don't tell the whole story. Dana Bell covers some of the acceptance criteria leeway in respect of Naval aircraft in Aviation Color Primers No.1 pages 14 & 15 which explains how painting expediencies in production were to be handled)

"There will be an excellent and well researched volume coming out on the B-24 which will show that there were no specs followed across the production. Five different manufacturers and four modification depots and multiple manufacturers of paint."

No specs followed across the production? Presumably you are only referring to paint specs but B-24 factory paint shop drawings show no colour requirements whatsoever? I await the book with interest.

"Specs and paint cards are nice as a standard, but even the USAAF knew that they were not worth much more than the cards the specs were printed on."

Evidence?

Interesting approach to research Steven. Having dismissed all the documentary evidence the field is open for your photographic interpretation and opinion. Tempting but I don't buy it thanks.

[LDSModeller]

Hi All

Check out this Youtube clip, especially the early P 40's being uncrated/readied for flight.

The under colour to me is way too light for even the lightest grey that could have been used

With regard to Brewster 339E Buffalo's when the MAP folks placed an order in 1940 to purchase

US aircraft types (not lend lease) Britain and Commonwealth etc were at war, the United States

was not so, they were not yet on war footing even when types like the Buffalo were delivered

the US was still some months from doing so, I don't think firms like Brewster/Curtiss etc

were overly rushed off their feet production wise (like they would be), that they could not build

aircraft to British spec.

If you check out the cone section of the tail under surface it appears very light in colour,

too light for a grey hue

These excerpts are taken from a Book written during WWII by the RAF titled "Britains wonderful

Air Force" Chapter 13, pages 287-288

re MAP purchased Aircraft (apologies for clarity, scanner's not working)

Regards

Alan

[Nick Millman]

You've done it now Alan. We'll get lots of photographs, even colour ones, showing "light grey".

Btw I owe you an email - I found some more interesting information about the Buffalo colours in squadron records. I'll try to catch up!

[LDSModeller]

You've done it now Alan. We'll get lots of photographs, even colour ones, showing "light grey".

Btw I owe you an email - I found some more interesting information about the Buffalo colours in squadron records. I'll try to catch up!

Hi NicK

Look forward to your E-mail

Thanks

Alan

[Steven Eisenman]

Nick

As solid as your evidence based on holding a color chip and from that saying it was all like the color chip.

As for evidence of US industry, guess i have lived with it and studied it. I would not presume to assume I know the way of the royals.

As much as you'd like to think you have evidence, you have none.

As for lighter than gray, perhaps white?

Nick, even you would reject lighter than gray as evidence of not being gray.

Also, I may be mistaken, but the duPont paints were the "spec" late '40 early '41, so any production before that is up for grabs as to 'color applied".

As for the issue of "no war", the US was rushing to be prepared. And supplying non-axis countries.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Steven Eisenman

[Nick Millman]

"As solid as your evidence based on holding a color chip and from that saying it was all like the color chip."

You know very well that is not the only evidence and that is not what I'm saying (we have been around these houses many times before). Misrepresenting my case does not make your (yet to be presented) case stronger. I have set out the evidence (and will continue to do so) on my blog.

I would still like to see your evidence for the counter claim. So far there has been nothing but opinion - opinion which appears to ignore most of the documented and/or published evidence about how the British Air Commission and the (US) Defence Aid Organisation actually worked in detail, the work of the joint committees in co-ordinating camouflage and paint requirements, the US aircraft factory drawings and data (which mostly show/specify 'Duck Egg Blue'), the work of the modification and acceptance centres, the MAP, RAF and DTD files which contain colour match swatches of actual US paint for the British aircraft manufacturers assigned to support imported aircraft (e.g. Fairey Aviation), including Du Pont 71-021, and a reconciliation equivalence list for MAP and US paints, a paint formula and pigment list, extant copies of wartime signals throughout RAF, Anti-Aircraft Command and Observer Corps, etc., describing the "American colours" for identification purposes, the extant Du Pont 71 Series colour card which shows 71-021, the original colour prints and slides of aircraft (not scanned internet copies) and the specific references to colour by interested observers (Bowyer, Huntley, Belling, etc.) who made contemporaneous notes, records, colour matches and paintings or who commented on them as part of official inspections and acceptance reports (e.g. RAE).

In none of this researchable data have I ever found any reference to Sky Grey or aircraft gray paint on the undersurfaces of US aircraft manufactured for the RAF (as opposed to the FAA). That seems to be confined entirely to modern photographic interpretation, opinion, anecdotal hearsay or the derivative wave effect of internet sites into the modelling world.

Even Terrill Clements wrote in respect of P-40 factory colours as follows (Flying Tigers AVG forum of 27th August 2001):-

"the factory paint job was brown and green on the top, and the bottoms were a light gray with a greenish/blue cast. All the evidence I have seen indicates that this was indeed the color scheme of the Tomahawks supplied to the AVG. (There were likely a few slight one-off exceptions as Curtiss put together the shipments with the components at hand.) As you indicate, the planes were in most cases taken from the same production lines. I won't go into the tedious details, but the colors used were Curtiss' attempt to match the colors specified for RAF Day Fighters in 1940-41, but NOT exact matches.

I'll happily go with that. The 71-021 swatch could well be described as "light gray with a greenish/blue cast". It is not, however, Sky Grey, aircraft gray or a neutral grey. At least two (original) colour photographs of AVG aircraft show undersurfaces closer in appearance to the Du Pont colour card chip for 71-021 which is warmer, slightly more greenish and less blue than the swatch - closer in appearance to original RAF Sky in fact.

Incidentally Terrill's comment followed another which stated this:-

"Although I cannot vouch for the H81 aircraft sent to China (although I do have colour and Black and white photos of them), I do have information on the H81 aircraft that went to the RAF Sqns in the Desert.

The aircraft Delivered in the Desert were orginally painted Brown and Green with a grey-ish green colour underneath (hard to work out if grey or a close match to duckegg green). This is mentioned in Sqn ORB's (operational Record Books). The aircraft I have checked all come from around the batches and also in two cases are a serial before and a serial after one of the aircraft going into China. In my view, why would they have been painted the any other than the same colours (why paint only 100 of 1181 aircraft a different colour, and also the pictorial information seems to so otherwise). The aircraft were taken straight from the production lines and were not a special order, so once again why change the colour as at the time they were being built for and were expected to go to the RAF."

I still await the opportunity, as I have already waited so long, to read your evidence with interest and an open mind. So, instead of attacking my case please just set out yours, in detail, with the appropriately referenced primary supporting evidence, if any, to demonstrate that US manufacturers deliberately painted the undersurfaces of aircraft destined for the RAF with light grey paint matched to AM Sky Grey because they were confused by and/or misunderstood British requirements for Sky.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Nick Millman

[Steven Eisenman]

In spite of all your holier than thou posting you present no clear evidence. You say you have seen it, but don't present it. You have no evidence that a spec was specifically followed. Just because they called it something does not mean it was actually used. As for the slur about Graham and my ya-boo. Your bully pulpit assertions are only that.

Well since you evidence of actual use in the US, it is still a baseless assertion. Bruce is at least closer to the truth, as at least the person he is in contact with is using US based documents.

Some do not simply accept you assumptions.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Steven Eisenman

[Nick Millman]

Ignoring the ad hominem attack (which I expected) I have presented the evidence, citing the specific documents, (including Dana Bell who even includes some of the factory drawings in his Export colours book) and even posting the Du Pont colour card on my blog.

You keep attacking my evidence - and I begin to wonder whether you are conflating evidence with proof - but still don't provide yours. Your alliance with Bruce is understandable as you both believe the same things. I respect that, but as it stands his evidence is hearsay. I look forward to it with interest, though, because very clearly we are not going to get anything from you other than opinion.

"Some do not simply accept you assumptions."

They are not assumptions but in any case I don't expect everyone to. You have persistently attacked my posts on this, misquoted me and misrepresented my case, all along failing to provide anything of your own except vague assertions and when pressed you then start making personal attacks.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Nick Millman

[Mike]

Do I really need to tell you gentlemen to lay off with the personal business & stick to the topic in hand? Agree to differ by all means, but do not resort to mud slinging & insults... that way only leads to warnings.

Take this as your pre-warning warning.

[mick b]

Gents,

I joined the Britmodeller forum as I liked the generally friendly atmosphere of the forum debates on here and the excellent level of knowledge of the clientele and that is why I turned away from the endless mud slinging and rivet counters on the forum hosted by that nice Aussie bloke.

There is an obvious reason why it appears here but I fear if I say it Mike will ban me for ever.

Regards

Mick

[Steven Eisenman]

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

Yes there were "factory drawings". But that is not evidence that they were followed to the letter.

If Bruce's associates's initial findings are correct, then a spec drawing is only the value of the paper it is printed on.

As Bruce noted in his initial post:

"Now to Curtiss. As I have beed alluding to, someone has acquired paint records from the Buffalo paint shop. Multiple suppliers have been named in the records, and multiple paintnames have been mentioned. There were at least three greys used on the undersides of P-40 type aircraft for export. At least one I have been informed is a Greyish grey, not at all a "sky" type grey. What this person is doing is trying to identify which colors were used on what batches, then identify the colors themselves. One consistancy has been noticed, the green ( which looks very close to US Medium Green and RAAF Foliage Green ) used for the uppersurface on Camo'd P-40s was DuPont Dark Green, almost exclusively."

The point that has been made by Bruce and others, is that a specification and a chip does not mean the final product was like that.

The disconnect is between what was to be done and what actually was done. There are enough indications of "difference" to raise the real possibility of divergence from the specs.

Yes, you have the evidence of the specifications, but we do not have all the evidence of the implementation.

While the du Pont color may have been the "spec" color. it was not the only maker of paint, and knowing Du Pont, it was probably the most costly.

As to Mick b, should one not consider that a personal attack, added for no reason related to the "argument" over color.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Steven Eisenman

[Nick Millman]

Don't disagree with that but we also have extant evidence for how the colours applied actually appeared at the time in the various reports cited, as well as the recovered extant samples from former Soviet Union and elsewhere, which show a consistency with colours matched to Sky/Duck Egg Blue and the extant specs/swatch/card. That is therefore evidence of implementation, although not perfect and not proof. I have never doubted the existence of anomalies or variations - but how to quantify them?

The evidence for light grey is sparse and whilst the possibility exists the same could be said about many other aircraft colours, e.g. that the bulk of evidence lies in what was intended rather than what was done.

The specs and factory drawings are evidence that the US manufacturers had not misunderstood the requirement, which was the case originally being made for the light greys. That ground seems to have shifted now to expense and expediency but we have still not seen any suggestions about actual colours other than paint names or descriptions. Hopefully there will be some forthcoming. There may also be some mileage in the timeline when Curtiss began finishing all P-40E1 aircraft in the RAF-style scheme, which may certainly have opened the door to expediency.

[John]

I don't know if this adds fundamentally to this discussion but the latest edition of Model Aeroplane Monthly has a major article on Soviet P-40s, accompanied by photos of many P-40 sub-types. The undersides of the P-40Bs appear very light indeed in the photos - all caveats acknowledged!

John

[Nick Millman]

Thanks for mentioning it. Whilst a very interesting article about the operational use of P-40's by the Soviets unfortunately the accompanying colour profiles are not very helpful because they describe the undersurface colours as "Sky Gray/Neutral Gray" and depict something resembling Medium Sea Grey. There is absolutely no evidence provided for that interpretation or any discussion about it in the article.

In respect of photographs the problem is that Sky, Sky Grey and Sky Blue have very similar reflectivity so it is impossible to distinguish between them for all practical purposes, although some profess to be able to do so.

[timbo33]

Right, I'm going to add my two penn'orth to this because it all boils back down to the age-old argument of 'Have you painted that model in the right colour?'

It's well documented that numerous aircraft types supplied by the US to the RAF (Mitchells, Dakotas..) and Fleet Air Arm (Avengers, Corsairs...) once the US came into the war would have been supplied in US colours and adopted in to British service in those colours through expediency. The manufacturers were churning them out as fast as they could for supply to both the USAAF and RAF and aircraft would often have been diverted from one order to another due to necessity. hence aircraft destined for the USAAF may have been delivered to fulfil a more urgent RAF need.

What is at issue in this thread though is the supply of US aircraft to RAF order before lend-lease and when the British Government was paying hard cash to the manufacturers for their aeroplanes. Unlike Nick or any of the other regular contributors to these all too frequent arguments about Paint colours, I don't have any evidence to support my assertions, but I would expect to see some pretty hard evidence to convince me that RAF aircraft would have been painted in a range of US substitute hues , which I think is the point Nick is trying to make.

the argument is that the US Manfacturers were a bunch of mavericks who could provide any old rubbish and the British Government would roll over. This from the country that invented the term 'Customer Service'? I'm also pretty sure that the US Government weren't any less demanding. My limited experience of dealing with the US Government in the past leads me to believe it to be significantly less flexible in accepting any alternative to that specified (anyone heard of Mil. Specs?)

It is therefore disingenous to suggest that the manufacturers could paint them whatever colour they wanted and the Air Ministry would accept them. More than that, why would the manufacturers do that? At the time the first P-40s were ordered (by France in 1939) the US was not 'gearing up for war' it was simply meeting demand for it's products from overseas buyers - exactly what happens now. If Northwest Airlines orders $200 billion worth of 777s from Boeing, do Boeing tell them to have them painted in US Air colours?

In 1939-41 The US manufacturers would have attempted to match the specification provided by the Air Ministry and British Purchasing Commission. If you're painting several hundred aeroplanes, you can afford to buy some new paint in rather than use what's on the shelf. The paints may not have been exact matches but (in my opinion) they would have been closer than has been suggested earlier in this thread which (I think) is the other point Nick is trying to make.

Let's face it, in my World (not of hues and saturation but of eyeballs) RAF Sky is a colour nearer to a Creamy Green than Grey, so why would a manufacturer paint a plane Grey (a mix of Black and white) if the spec. called for 'creamy green'?

So, in my belief system, RAF P-40's would have been supplied in the colours of 'almost but not exactly RAF Dark Green' with 'almost but not exactly RAF Dark Earth' on the top surfaces and 'almost but not exactly RAF Sky' on the under surfaces. I will consequently continue to paint my P-40s in RAF Dark Green/RAF Dark Earth and RAF Sky (though since most of them were sent to the Middle East, Mid Stone/Dark Earth/Mediterranean Blue seems more appropriate until credible evidence to the contrary is put forward.

....and retire............

Edited May 22, 2009 by timbo33

[Mentalguru]

In 1939-41 The US manufacturers would have attempted to match the specification provided by the Air Ministry and British Purchasing Commission. If you're painting several hundred aeroplanes, you can afford to buy some new paint in rather than use what's on the shelf. The paints may not have been exact matches but (in my opinion) they would have been closer than has been suggested earlier in this thread which (I think) is the other point Nick is trying to make.

So, in my belief system, RAF P-40's would have been supplied in the colours of 'almost but not exactly RAF Dark Green' with 'almost but not exactly RAF Dark Earth' on the top surfaces and 'almost but not exactly RAF Sky' on the under surfaces. I will consequently continue to paint my P-40s in RAF Dark Green/RAF Dark Earth and RAF Sky (though since most of them were sent to the Middle East, Mid Stone/Dark Earth/Mediterranean Blue seems more appropriate until credible evidence to the contrary is put forward.

....and retire............

I think the words of the last paragraph are pure wisdom. The only surefire way to know EXACTLY what colours these aircraft were painted would be to have undefeatable knowledge that RAF paint stocks were shipped to the US and applied under the watchful eye of a British invigilator.

Just ONE "wrong" colour can change the whole overall perception of the way an aircraft would look, and when mixed in with poor colour photography, along with the way in which each and every one of us perceives things slightly differently, then these are times when it's best to bite the bullet and do the best one can.

I would concur though regarding constantly repeated proof of an exceptionally light underside colour, more a creamy white than a grey or sky blue, green or pink

[thx6667]

One issue that many who are not from the United States do not appreciate is the "fly by the seat of one's pants" or "do what is expedient and perhaps less costly" attitude of US manufacturing, especially during a war.

Given the privations that one soggy little island endured for six years between 1939/1945, I'd say we've long appreciated the issue of expediency in manufacturing during wartime.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Jonathan Mock

[timbo33]

Given the privations that one soggy little island endured for six years between 1939/1945, I'd say we've long appreciated the issue of expediency in manufacturing during wartime.

[zeke]

Crikey!...did the War really start in 1939?...I was under the impression that it began in 1941...silly me...

Good discussion though chaps...keep it up...

[timbo33]

Crikey!...did the War really start in 1939?...I was under the impression that it began in 1941...

...1942 to the nearest whole year...

[John]

Did the British Purchasing Commission place Resident Technical Officers (or an equivalent) in the US factories manufacturing to UK Government contracts pre-lendlease?

John

[Steven Eisenman]

A shame WEM was not producing paints for the US. The DG was not an "exact match". The Dark Earth was not an "exact match". No cigar for either one, and the underside was subject to ongoing debate.

But you are welcome to be derisive of US efforts and assume what you want.

You're just damn lucky the Republicans and the Lindbergs of the US were not running the country back then, and you got what you did.

BTW, didn't it sort of start before 1-9-39, oh but some decided to wait for Poland to fall, and then were not enthusiastic.

Sorry if anyone is offended.