Spitfire cockpit (and others) colour

[ben_m]

This question pertains to a PR I project I'm working on. The first two PR I's received Camotint overall (I'm satisfied on that score, not trying to open yet another can of worms...). I have pictures that indicate the insides of the landing gear struts and the wheels were left in white/black, but I am not sure of the interior of the wheel wells themselves. Thanks in advance for any assistance!

I agree that N6071 looks to have had kept the white/black struts and hubs. I have several, unpublished, clear shots of N3117 on it's nose (this was possibly the third PR Ib aircraft, after the original two Ia's were converted to Ib's). I think everything except the wells for the struts (not sure of the correct name) was camotint on that aircraft at that point. The part of the well for the struts appear it could be painted a darker colour than the main round part, on both sides, but it is hard to be 100% sure. I don't think it is the original black paint from the black/white halves, as the starboard side looks darker, if anything, and that is the side that would have been white, isn't it?

Crops of a couple of the unpublished photos:

Edited December 10, 2009 by ben_m

[Nick Millman]

34672, really? In my 595 fan deck that's more of what I'd call extremely pale whitish-green. The photos that Edgar has posted of this "new" "correct" Spitfire interior color on un-restored seats, etc appears to be a much darker, much greener color. Now I'm really confused.

J

Really. Re-checking the cured paint it is ever so slightly darker but not obviously so to the eye. This is a comparison of real Humbrol 90 paint to a real FS 595b deck. I can't answer for other tins of 90 or what colours look like in photographs. From experience the consistency of Humbrol paints is not assured.

N

[Nick Millman]

2/. Now, here's a radical thought (came to me while I was reading the relevant A.M.O.) Until all paints became smooth, Sky is always referred to as "duck-egg blue (Sky Type "S")" Note that duck-egg blue has no capitals, inferring that it isn't a name, so what if it is a simple description, and blue = Sky, while Type "S" = duck-egg. Check a duck egg, and you'll find that it has a smooth, satin-like surface; nowadays you'll find semi-matt finishes being labelled "eggshell," so why isn't it possible that the wartime smooth was listed as "duck egg?" Yes, I know that Sky was green, not blue, but some twit labelled the Spitfire seat as "Bakelite," causing years of aggravation, so why not misname a colour?

Edgar

It's an interesting idea but unfortunately not borne out by the Air Ministry signal sent to all units concerned on 7 June 1940:-

"the colour of camouflage Sky Type S, repeat S, may be described as Duck Egg Blueish Green".

This appears to refer to the colour appearance rather than the finish but even if the "Duck Egg" bit were meant to convey the latter the colour is still described as "Blueish Green" in a communication specifically intended to clarify the colour appearance rather than anything else. Further the Titanine Canada 1941 paint chart displays the Sky equivalent with the description "Camouflage Duckegg Bluish Green". Since the colour as mixed from the specified pigments results in a colour almost exactly similar to that of a duck egg, a very pale slightly blueish green, it seems reasonable to conclude that is what the description was intended to convey (Occam's Razor). During the latter part of 1940 and throughout 1941 the description "Duck Egg Blue" was used in North America in preference to Sky.

[Jim Kiker]

Hi Nick and all,

Nick, several posts up you showed the Munsell and FS comparisons, revolving around Humbrol's old formula for Beige Green. I want to make sure I understand what you said in regard to the "correct" color for Sky. If I understood your information correctly, that old Humbrol 90 formula is much too light, too green, and too beige-y (tawny, if you will) to be a good match for Sky. Correct?

Next, I noted that FS 34424 is apparently a fairly colse match to the Munsell value for Sky; also correct? This part confuses me because it does not appear to be a pale color at all to me. I understand the problems with reproduction and especially computer monitors, but every way I look at FS 34424, including my copy of the chips, it does not appear to be very pale, but more of a not-very-light bluish-green. I can also see that using more of a browner type of Yellow Ochre would add a bit of tawny to the shade. I feel I must be missing something here.

I use solvent-based paints, and over the weekend I took a tin of old Humbrol 90 Beige Green and added 6-7 big drops (from a drinking straw) of light blue, plus three drops of white, plus one drop of royal blue. This resulted in a less tawny, more bluish shade, still more green than blue, and nearly as pale as the original. If what I wrote above is all correct, this would still mean this paint is too green and much too pale (light) to be a good match, even allowing for scale (something I do with most of my mixes for 1/48 scale aircraft). This suggests that I need to darken my current mix a bit, and blue it up some more. Would you concur?

Many thanks, Jim

[Nick Millman]

Hi Nick and all,

Nick, several posts up you showed the Munsell and FS comparisons, revolving around Humbrol's old formula for Beige Green. I want to make sure I understand what you said in regard to the "correct" color for Sky. If I understood your information correctly, that old Humbrol 90 formula is much too light, too green, and too beige-y (tawny, if you will) to be a good match for Sky. Correct?

Next, I noted that FS 34424 is apparently a fairly colse match to the Munsell value for Sky; also correct? This part confuses me because it does not appear to be a pale color at all to me. I understand the problems with reproduction and especially computer monitors, but every way I look at FS 34424, including my copy of the chips, it does not appear to be very pale, but more of a not-very-light bluish-green. I can also see that using more of a browner type of Yellow Ochre would add a bit of tawny to the shade. I feel I must be missing something here.

I use solvent-based paints, and over the weekend I took a tin of old Humbrol 90 Beige Green and added 6-7 big drops (from a drinking straw) of light blue, plus three drops of white, plus one drop of royal blue. This resulted in a less tawny, more bluish shade, still more green than blue, and nearly as pale as the original. If what I wrote above is all correct, this would still mean this paint is too green and much too pale (light) to be a good match, even allowing for scale (something I do with most of my mixes for 1/48 scale aircraft). This suggests that I need to darken my current mix a bit, and blue it up some more. Would you concur?

Many thanks, Jim

Hi Jim

Yes. The current approximate Munsell for Sky in B.S.381C is 4.7 GY 6.9/1.9 which is comparable to the 5 GY 7/2 in the 1971 standard cited by Edgar above. Geoffrey J Thomas gives a Munsell value of 5 GY 7.3/1.5 for wartime Sky, also similar, all of which result in a close FS 595b equivalent of 34424. The calculated difference between the Munsell values and the FS 595b value using the DE2000 criteria is about 1.87 where a value of 2.0 or less equals a close match so the FS value is very close indeed.

Bear in mind though that these values are for the paint colour standard and not necessarily how supplied and applied paint might have appeared. Tim has already commented elsewhere on the whitish appearance of wartime Sky, as have others (some describing it as "creamy"), and the paint on a small sample invariably looks darker than that seen on a large surface under daylight illuminant. Visually the current B.S. sample looks darker than the MAP swatch as does the FS chip. They are all the same hue but with slight differences in lightness.

When I have tried mixing the specified constituent pigments - 25 parts white to "about" one part yellow ochre with a "trace" of Prussian Blue - the resultant colour always seems paler than the standard but it is very easy to shift the colour between more green and more blue with the Prussian Blue. If standard RAF marking Yellow and Blue are used instead (as units mixing the paint in 1940 may have done) stronger, greener, more turquoise colours can result, which is what I think happened rather than all this BoB "eau-de-nil" malarky. I think the paint was probably mixed using standard stores colours already on station rather than erks being sent out to pick up B.S. house paint from the local Woolworths. The "trace" of blue could have been anything from a large dollop to something which effectively disappeared in the mix. The type of white used also influences the appearance of the final result.

Scale colour is a personal and subjective choice so I wouldn't want to influence you about that. As to the "old" Humbrol 90, as I commented before, some might find it quite satisfactory for a scale version of Sky. I haven't seen the new version yet.

HTH

Regards

Nick

[Jim Kiker]

Hi Nick,

That is very helpful indeed! For my PR I, I actually want to represent "Camotint" as registered by Sidney Cotton, so I think erring on the pale side will work fine. Your point about the local mixing makes full sense for me now, and points to the evidence that the color "Sky" appeared somewhat lighter early on, and a bit darker/stronger/more standardized later on. It also suggests to me to adjust the "blue" content for a later, more standardized version of Sky when I get to my Sea Fury. I have read some writers who think that the 1950's version of Sky was supposed to be different, lighter and more creamy than the war-time shade, but I now believe that is more bushwah than anything. So I am getting a two-fer out of this!

Now if I could be a bit more sure of what color(s) to do the PR I's wheel wells to go with the black/white gear struts and inner gear doors... !

Much appreciated, Jim

[Nick Millman]

Hi Jim

For the early 'camotint' I think the original SBOAC formula holds good:- "White tinted with about 4% Yellow Oxide and a trace of Prussian Blue". The variable is the Yellow Oxide which is not pure yellow as some assume but rather a synthetic hydrated iron oxide (in natural form it is yellow ochre) and in practice the colour of the pigment (and its effect on a mix) is dependant upon manufacturer. It can range from a strong mustard yellow to a decidedly dull ochre (see image below for "typical" example of raw pigment). I believe the White envisaged was a strong, bright white like Titanium Dioxide but in fact the paint varied according to its type. Prussian Blue is a strong and virulent colour, like a darker version of Ultramarine with the same pervasive blue pigment (it was the pigment used for engineer's blue) and again the precise type of pigment used and the percentage will have a strong impact on the mix.

The formula was intended to help paint manufacturers get to a paint that matched the MAP swatch but of course the journey there varied and as may be seen the formula was not precise.

Sometimes the older references get overlooked and I also find these observations by Michael J F Bowyer of interest when it comes to the unit-mixed "1940 Sky":-

"Many stations had to mix their own paint as a result of which there were soon many shades of the new tone ranging from quite rich blues almost like Azure Blue to colours best described as light green, as each station tried to produce paint in the tone listed by the SBOAC formula."

I doubt that stations had access to Yellow Oxide and Prussian Blue pigments so, as mentioned already, they probably used existing stores yellow and blue paints. This would result in the variations noted by Mr Bowyer. I can imagine the servicemen mixing to formula and then commenting "That can't be right" before "skewing" the mix with hefty dollops of blue to look more like the "Duck Egg Blueish Green" described. Recently these unit-mixed variations have been attributed to actual paint standards.

HTH

Regards

Nick

Edited December 15, 2009 by Nick Millman

[biggles2000]

I've been following the Spit cockpit colour part of this thread with interest as I have an Airfix Mk.I on hold until I can determine the "correct" shade. Edgar's arguments for Humbrol 90 are persuasive enough for me, but what is this shade? It seems that the contents of the recent tins have been changed to a shade nearer Sky. Is that close enough given possible variations in batches as discussed for Sky, or can someone suggest a mix?

Thanks in advance,

John