Spitfire cockpit (and others) colour

[Edgar]

For some time, I've been telling everyone that, for the early (and possibly quite late) Spitfires, Walruses, and the S6B, you should look for Humbrol's no. 90, but I've been getting reports that it seems to be different. At Telford, I was able to check, with Hornby, and had it confirmed that it has now been re-formulated into a match for Sky (which is what they always thought it was supposed to be.) It rather looks as though my theory, that Airfix/Humbrol made a Spitfire cockpit colour, but never told anybody, could be true. "Our" Trevor said that he'll have a look, again, and see if it can be reintroduced, under a different number, and its proper name. For now, though, if you think you're going to need it, grab some of the old colour.

Edgar

[pigsty]

Now I'm really confused. Humbrol 23 is duck egg blue and 90 is beige green. "Beige green" may be an odd way to describe it, but I always thought they were intended for early-war Sky (as in the RAF) and late-to-post-war Sky (as in Fleet Air Arm) respectively, and 90 certainly has the right greenish tinge for the maritime version. To this untutored eye, at least. Should I be using neither of them for my fish-head stuff?

[Dave Fleming]

I suspect it's resemblance to the early Spit inside was purely co-incidental. I always thought it was reasonably close enough to Sky for me! I remember John posting that no 23 was now more Sky than the old blue/Sky Blue colour.

Incidentally, if you mix Humbrol 78 Grey/green (which is close to the standard) with white you get a colour very close to sky!!

[pigsty]

Really? I thought I knew my way round the Humbrol catalogue but it doesn't ring a bell. Which one was that?

[avro683]

95, IIRC. I think I've still got some.

Tony

[Nick Millman]

The old 23 used to be a reasonable match for the Duck Egg Blue used on US export types but seems closer to Sky these days. Perhaps the two colours had their origins in Bowyer's identification of a Duck Egg Blue and a Duck Egg Green? Although often touted as a pale green or pale yellowish green there could be a distinct bluish caste to Sky because of the constituent pigment Prussian Blue which is very strong chromatically. The mix was imprecise and could be shifted quite easily towards more yellow/green or more blue and in some cases the white pigment, which was not specified, could dominate and result in a very creamy looking colour. It was also dependent on the purity and shade of the yellow ochre - hydrated iron oxide - which could vary from a fairly strong yellow to a dull mustard brown.

" . . . intended for early-war Sky (as in the RAF) and late-to-post-war Sky (as in Fleet Air Arm) respectively, and 90 certainly has the right greenish tinge for the maritime version."

That is all news to me. Were there really such distinctions - intended - and if so what is the evidence for them? AFAIK the AM Sky standard was singular in intention - as it still is. Of course variations abound but that is a different proposition from a FAA Sky paint colour standard with a distinct appearance.

[pigsty]

No evidence, really. It's just that I recall (I know not where from) that the two are intended to match slightly different formulations of Sky. I've always thought the underside of early Hurricanes and Spitfires was a slightly different shade - more blue - than the underside of, say, a Sea Fury. But there's every chance that this is a fluke of the light, or the way a single colour can appear when set beside other colours. Humbrol 90 is commonly recommended as a match for "Sky Type S", which may imply a different formulation than "Sky", which is what 23 is often recommended for. But then you have the complication of what I read recently, which is that "Type S" only means the smoothness of the finish, not the colour itself. So to be honest I know nothing and am only repeating what I've gleaned (there must be a lesson in that somewhere). If either 23 or 90 will suffice for my Fleet Air Arm stuff, that will do me nicely.

[John]

Humbrol 95 was "Concrete". It was a paler shade than 90 but in the same ballpark. I can't recall it as being a good match for Sky and indeed I can't ever remember Airfix recommending it in their kits. I may have an old tin lying around, I'll see if I can find it.

IIRC in the PSL/Airfix book on the Spitfire the authors recommended mixing a touch of 38 Lime with (then) 1 Eau-de-Nil. I would have thought that would have generated a richer, greener colour than 90.

I can feel some mixing coming on!

John

[Max Headroom]

Talking of early Spit interiors, didn't somebody conclude that the first ones had an apple green interior rather than grey/green and that the RAFM mk.1 was renovated thus? Incidentally, would that also read across for pre war Walruses??

Confused.com

MH

[MilneBay]

Frankly I've been using Humbrol 90 for Sky for quite a few years - whenever Edgar said it was a good match for early Spitfire interiors I just put it down to the fact that he obviously hadn't actually taken the trouble to see what the colour was in the can. So I totally ignored him and continue to get the various colours both internal and external right. Some of us quietly do our own research.

Experts hah !!!!!

Probably the same people who convinced Tamiya to tell everyone to paint the interior of their 1/48 Lancaster Sky - and before anyone leaps up and down I know the reasoning behind that suggestion.

Edited November 12, 2009 by MilneBay

[Miggers]

Sorry,but can I just say that Edgar is pretty well respected around this neck of the woods when it comes down to

Supermarine products.

Don't get me wrong,Edgar doesn't pay me or live next door to me nor is he a relative of mine,he isn't always right,

but he'll always go that extra mile to find out what you want from his extensive range of information.

Unfortunately like he says,when he's wrong there are elements about who "jump on the bandwagon".

Could I most respectfully ask you MilneBay,that if you DO want to tell Edgar that he's made a prat of himself

that you do it under the confines of private messaging rather than blasting it out loudly for all and sundry,

because I must assure you,he put's far more people onto the right track than the wrong.

Thankyou.

Mark

[Peter B]

Sorry,but can I just say that Edgar is pretty well respected around this neck of the woods when it comes down to

Supermarine products.

Don't get me wrong,Edgar doesn't pay me or live next door to me nor is he a relative of mine,he isn't always right,

but he'll always go that extra mile to find out what you want from his extensive range of information.

Unfortunately like he says,when he's wrong there are elements about who "jump on the bandwagon".

Could I most respectfully ask you MilneBay,that if you DO want to tell Edgar that he's made a prat of himself

that you do it under the confines of private messaging rather than blasting it out loudly for all and sundry,

because I must assure you,he put's far more people onto the right track than the wrong.

Thankyou.

Mark

Peter

[MilneBay]

Sorry,but can I just say that Edgar is pretty well respected around this neck of the woods when it comes down to

Supermarine products.

Don't get me wrong,Edgar doesn't pay me or live next door to me nor is he a relative of mine,he isn't always right,

but he'll always go that extra mile to find out what you want from his extensive range of information.

Unfortunately like he says,when he's wrong there are elements about who "jump on the bandwagon".

Could I most respectfully ask you MilneBay,that if you DO want to tell Edgar that he's made a prat of himself

that you do it under the confines of private messaging rather than blasting it out loudly for all and sundry,

because I must assure you,he put's far more people onto the right track than the wrong.

Thankyou.

Mark

And could I ask you to get down of your high horse and note that I did actually imply a little light heartedness in my reply with the emoticons I used - if and when you do dismount have a quick look at some of the alternatives I might have used. For instance

Oh and the formula change of which Edgar speaks has not effected the colour at all simply the basic chemicals used so I have also been getting the colour right as well for the time that I have been using it, and I might add the latest change has given it a better covering power than the older less elfensafty mix.

[Skii]

Milnebay, whilst your opinions might differ to Edgars, your post was dismissive and would rub anyone up the wrong way who had taken to trouble to post up their findings.

By all means post your opinions, but please do it in a way that is more respectful to other members, thankyou.

[Edgar]

Oh and the formula change of which Edgar speaks has not effected the colour at all

Interesting that this is at total variance with Hornby/Humbrol's information, after my question at Telford. According to Trevor, the mix (of dyes, not just chemicals) has now been changed so that it is a match for Sky aka B.S.381C:210, previously 5-059 in B.S.2660, or colour 9A in (wartime) H.M.G. Aircraft series, whereas, before, it didn't match anything that they were aware of. If Hornby say that it's a different colour, perhaps you should look again?

Edgar

[Doug]

Hi All,

Just to add my two penneth worth, I was always told to use Humbrol 23 "Duck Egg Blue" for early RAF WW2 undersides (Munich crises to start of the B of and then Humbrol 90 "Beige-Green" for the rest of the B of B until the RAF adopted Sea Grey Medium undersides.

As is always commented on colours are a real pain and no-one really knows what shade is right and what isn't and just like Humbrol one batch differs from another, this is so very true of H23, I have 5 pots and none dry to the same shade!!!!

Doug. (A member of the Edger's supporters club)

Edited November 13, 2009 by Doug

[Test Graham]

I don't recall that particular hint, but H23 used to be a good match to the wartime Sky Blue. I've a feeling I had several tins some years back but the paint came out looking more like Sky. I thought that Humbrol had taken the hint that Duck Egg Blue was Sky and altered their perfectly good Sky Blue to suit. However, it's quite a while ago now, so I don't know what's in the current tins on sale.

[Nick Millman]

FWIW the current BS Sky Munsell value is slightly darker than the AM wartime value - 4.7 GY 6.9/1.9 vs 5 GY 7.3/1.5 measured from the standard not the paint.

And being pedantic the components of paint are more commonly described as being pigments, binder, solvent and additives - the former imparting the actual colour usually as granular solids (sometimes replaced with dyes and/or combined with dyes) although some paints also use tinting additives to correct, shift or permanize colour usually in the form of pastes.

The binder holds the pigments and additives together and the solvent is the liquid carrier allowing the paint to be applied by brush or spray and which then evaporates away as the paint dries.

The additives cover a diverse range designed to modify surface tension, improve flow properties, improve the finished appearance, increase wet edge, improve pigment stability, impart antifreeze properties, control foaming, control skinning and include catalysts, thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers, texturizers, adhesion promoters, UV stabilizers, flatteners (de-glossing agents), biocides to fight bacterial growth, etc.

The molecular holistic structure of all these and their individual and combined effectiveness (or otherwise) dictates the way the paint will age and degrade. It is multi-faceted and highly dependent on environmental and treatment factors. Where multiple pigments are used in paint some may degrade more quickly over time and leave behind the more resilient pigments relatively unaltered resulting eventually in a completely different appearance of colour. UV exposure and thermal ageing can alter the molecular structure and colour appearance without necessarily changing the surface appearance, creating the impression that the paint is "well preserved" when it isn't.

Two separate paint manufacturing companies can use identical but differently sourced pigments to create paint to a common formula and which when applied matches a common standard. But once applied the paints may thereafter age and degrade quite differently to the point where years later they may appear to be two completely different colours. Hypothetically, the extant samples may then be compared and matched to an extant standard (which may also have changed over time) resulting in one of them being identified as a "new" and hitherto unrecorded "colour" or, as has sometimes happened in the past, with both being identified as separate colours and being given distinctive descriptions.

What begins as a can of paint can end up as a can of worms.

[MilneBay]

Interesting that this is at total variance with Hornby/Humbrol's information, after my question at Telford. According to Trevor, the mix (of dyes, not just chemicals) has now been changed so that it is a match for Sky aka B.S.381C:210, previously 5-059 in B.S.2660, or colour 9A in (wartime) H.M.G. Aircraft series, whereas, before, it didn't match anything that they were aware of. If Hornby say that it's a different colour, perhaps you should look again?

Edgar

Umm ......... how many tins of it have you opened over the last 6 or so years? I can only tell you what I have found.

I went from using #23 to #90 over 6 years ago. I took some convincing considering it was listed as beige but the greatest problem I first had was that it was a fair cow to brush paint, and I was forced to mix my own to get better coverage, however the new formula is excellent in that department.

Although I still cannot see, given the colour, what evidence you would have to suggest that it was the colour used in the early Spitfire interiors. Weren't they purported to be some sort of palish apple green not unlike a greenish pale IGG. The closest colour I can think of that matches that concept is our old favourite Eau-de-Nil, which used to be a stock Humbrol colour.

[Jennings Heilig]

My head hurts!

J

PS: So what color was the aft quarter light panel on razorback P-47s anyway? And was "Lou IV" blue or green?

Edited November 14, 2009 by Jennings Heilig

[Nick Millman]

"My head hurts!"

No-one said it was easy. Try Norman castles or Feudal Japan.

[Nick Millman]

Curious about this so I brushed out a sample of 90 from the oldest tin I have, bought in the 1980's and with the grey "non-poisonous" strip on the front.

I won't go into the measured value in detail as I get the message that sort of precision is not wanted or welcome here. The brushed out colour is almost identical to FS 34672 (difference calculation less than 2.0 where >2.0 = a close match) but it is brighter and yellower than 34424 which is often given as the equivalent for Sky. It is a bright colour with higher reflectivity.

Comparing it to the actual Sky swatches. Against the AM swatch it is also brighter and yellower - like a "scaled" version - and against the modern BS381C 210 even more so.

Without getting too technical it is also a "green yellow" in the Munsell system - of similar hue but a significantly different chroma and lightness. The difference calculation between the two values (90 vs WW2 AM Sky) is 7.16 where >2.0 = a close match. e.g. you could probably use it for Sky but whether that is appropriate would boil down to a "scale colour" argument. From a purely technical full scale perspective it is a different colour to the AM and BS Sky standards.

I'll let the paint cure over several days and then do another analysis to see if it has changed in appearance. And bear in mind that is just one tin.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Nick Millman

[Test Graham]

Ouch. From my experience, the Humbrol colour charts are printed and often bear little or no resemblance to either the colour in the tin or the colour it was intended to resemble. OK, it may be that this particular year was better than that, or that particular colour was ok (they were not ALL hopelessly wrong), but please say that you did some additional checking.

[Nick Millman]

"Can I, please, point out a salient (to me, anyway) point, etc."

And there was me thinking that my post was actually supportive and helpful. Well I won't be making that mistake again! I had no idea that you were not talking about the actual paint in the tin but just a printed facsimile chip. I thought the argument was about the suitability of the actual paint as a previously unrecorded interior colour vs a substitute/match for Sky. If all the examples you cite "match 90" the printed chip but not 90 the paint in the tin I'm struggling to see your point. Do we just use the 2000 Humbrol paint chart as the means to mix the paint ourselves or is there more to it than that?

And with the greatest respect, your two points of colour reference - printed hobby paint charts and colour photographs - are probably the least reliable of all the possible methods available and that is before we even get into the potential problems of visual subjective matching and photography under artificial lighting.

[John]

Let me re-present the great Sky Brushout Test!

These are acrylics. The Humbrol 90 represented here is from the earlier incarnation of their acrylic paints, not the most recent. If I get time I'll do it again with all the Skys I have in my paint box, and that's quite a few, along with the current BS381 chip.

John