Spitfire cockpit (and others) colour

[AnonymousFO98]

nice selection John

warm to cool with a range of tonal variations just to help diversify even further

[Test Graham]

Among the problems with relying upon printed charts (as opposed to paint chips) is that unless very strong quality control is applied, the colours will vary across the run. It is also true that getting one of the colours right can throw off another, so printing a sheet with a large number of colours requires a large number of separate colour runs. I recall there was considerable discussion on these points when Kookaburra produced their fourth volume on Luftwaffe camouflage, which included a printed colour sheet that doubled the price of the book - and it wasn't cheap. The Humbrol colour charts were not produced to this kind of very expensive standard. Some years ago I threw away my various yearly sets of Humbrol charts because so many of them bore little resemblance to the colour in the contemporary tin. (I rather wish I'd kept them to recall how the range has actually varied over the years, but that's another matter!)

Edgar, if you really checked all those airframes against that one colour chart, and they matched (with no variation), that does not tell me that it would necessarily match my copy (had I kept one) of that same chart. It will only match that one example that you possess, and presumably those examples printed in near proximity. It does not tell me that it matches a tin of paint that was bought in the same year as the chart (without allowing for any variation across the batches that might be available on the model shop shelf). It doesn't tell me that it matches the tin of paint I have in a box or go out and buy tomorrow. It tells me that the paint is somewhere around the right hue (assuming no major change in the mix) but unless the colour has been checked against a proper paint chip or a colour standard - in daylight, not interior lighting - then I cannot say that the colour I put on my Spitfire is a close match to the colour you saw.

As always, it depends how close the modeller wants to get. For many, your description will be near enough. But that wasn't what this thread was mainly about, it was about variations in colours and paints. Nothing to do with postponing your book on the Spitfire, which would be welcome.

And apple green, as everyone should know, was the colour used on LNER locomotives. Assuming they were built in Darlington. (Or was it Doncaster....oops, that's my credibility gone!)

[Nick Millman]

"For some time, I've been asked to consider writing a book, on my findings regarding the Spitfire; thank you all, for making the decision for me, since it's become obvious that I'd be wasting my time."

I don't think so at all. I would look forward to the book, admiring you without reservation for the precision and value of your commentary on all aspects of the Spitfire and many, many other subjects. But just as you seek and expect precision about the Spitfire so I approach the subject of colour.

The original comment about 90 was interesting and it aroused my curiosity enough to look more closely at it. I'm sorry if that offended - it was not meant to. In fact I thought it supported what you had said about 90 being quite a different colour from Sky

And without wishing to exacerbate your ire in any way "apple green" is a recognised and distinctive hue in Methuen - 29C7 - "the colour of unripened apples".

Btw one thing I didn't mention was that when I opened this 25+ years old tin of paint there was a solid lump of paint lurking beneath the brown solvent. After stirring it became a beautiful consistency and applied smoothly, with a brush, in a single opaque coat, drying to a perfect eggshell finish. How I wish Humbrol paints were like that now!

Edited November 14, 2009 by Nick Millman

[Edgar]

My annoyance stems from this talk of "reliance" on a colour chip. I was invited to look at a recently rebuilt Mk.I Spitfire; while there one of the staff mentioned that there were some left-over pieces, dating from the aircraft's first build in 1941, and would we like to see them. We cleaned several years-worth of dirt from several areas, then checked them, outside and in daylight, against two separately printed Humbrol colour charts, plus an F.S. fan-deck, and found that the paint was a perfect match for 90, nowhere near 78, and certainly not Sky (I have a colour card for that one, as well.) We then found a Mk.I-style seat, still in use in a totally separate XVI, which also matched 90. This stirred memories, and, back home, I searched my files, finding the much-maligned photos (mostly taken by me, using daylight, or a professional quality daylight-balanced electronic flash with quench tube, not artificial lighting,) and found many that were close enough to the same colour for my amateurish foraging. Since then I've found other, professionally-taken, photos with the same colour, also looked inside two Walruses and under two Spitfires with the same result. If someone travels all over the country, as I have done, and finds that there is no substance to my findings/discoveries (call them what you will,) I'll withdraw the whole thing, but I take great exception to having them dismissed from the comfort of a computer terminal.

Edgar

[Test Graham]

Then it is for me to apologise. In my defence, I was taking what you had posted at face value and I was presuming that you would then go ahead to explain what other comparisons you had made. As you have done.

I went back through the thread looking for your posting where you listed all the examples that you had studied, so that I could isolate the particular quote, but cannot find it. Was it from another thread altogether?

[thx6667]

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

Which begs the question that if we have so many modern day variations, was there a similar inconsistency during wartime?

[Nick Millman]

"Which begs the question that if we have so many modern day variations, was there a similar inconsistency during wartime?"

Yes, and it was documented at the time and has been since by reporters such as Ian Huntley, M J F Bowyer & R Belling to name just three. There were several factors in this but not least of which was the fact that I keep banging on about which was because the pigment formula for Sky was imprecise - a guide to use to mix paint to match the standard. White (not specified), about 4% Yellow Oxide (very variable according to the quality of refinement) and a trace of Prussian Blue (a virulent pigment which if added or mixed carelessly can dramatically shift hues). Both M J F Bowyer and Ian Huntley note that the type of white pigment in use varied according to the type of paint with both yellow-whites and blue-whites in use. Yellow Oxide is not yellow btw in this or any other mix (such as OD) although it is constantly being reported as such when people suggest mixing yellow and black to get OD. It is a yellow ochre and in the best refined or natural versions a mustard hue.

The other fact I bang on about is the difference between paint standards (which suppliers matched to) and the supplied paint, divided into that provided to factories and that provided to services. Then there were inevitable batch differences and service mixed paints.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Nick Millman

[John]

"Which begs the question that if we have so many modern day variations, was there a similar inconsistency during wartime?"

Yes, and it was documented at the time and has been since by reporters such as Ian Huntley, M J F Bowyer & R Belling to name just three. There were several factors in this but not least of which was the fact that I keep banging on about which was because the pigment formula for Sky was imprecise - a guide to use to mix paint to match the standard. White (not specified), about 4% Yellow Oxide (very variable according to the quality of refinement) and a trace of Prussian Blue (a virulent pigment which if added or mixed carelessly can dramatically shift hues). Both M J F Bowyer and Ian Huntley note that the type of white pigment in use varied according to the type of paint with both yellow-whites and blue-whites in use.

The other fact I bang on about is the difference between paint standards (which suppliers matched to) and the supplied paint, divided into that provided to factories and that provided to services. Then there were inevitable batch differences and service mixed paints.

..which is why, essentially, I remain sceptical about all the Eau-de-Nil and Sky Blue (both types) paints lying around fighter station stores for much of WWII.

John

[Nick Millman]

"..which is why, essentially, I remain sceptical about all the Eau-de-Nil and Sky Blue (both types) paints lying around fighter station stores for much of WWII."

And which you are right to be.

What pisses me off, frankly, is that some of those happy to waffle about paint and colour in books have never bothered to try mixing the basic pigments themselves and when it comes to it don't actually understand paint or colour or how it all works. The tendency for misidentification of old paint samples as being multiple separate and "new" colours rather than just variously degraded versions of paint supplied to the same colour standard or mixed to match it is well known amongst paint and coatings nerds.

[thx6667]

"Which begs the question that if we have so many modern day variations, was there a similar inconsistency during wartime?"

Yes, and it was documented at the time and has been since by reporters such as Ian Huntley, M J F Bowyer & R Belling to name just three. There were several factors in this but not least of which was the fact that I keep banging on about which was because the pigment formula for Sky was imprecise - a guide to use to mix paint to match the standard. White (not specified), about 4% Yellow Oxide (very variable according to the quality of refinement) and a trace of Prussian Blue (a virulent pigment which if added or mixed carelessly can dramatically shift hues). Both M J F Bowyer and Ian Huntley note that the type of white pigment in use varied according to the type of paint with both yellow-whites and blue-whites in use. Yellow Oxide is not yellow btw in this or any other mix (such as OD) although it is constantly being reported as such when people suggest mixing yellow and black to get OD. It is a yellow ochre and in the best refined or natural versions a mustard hue.

The other fact I bang on about is the difference between paint standards (which suppliers matched to) and the supplied paint, divided into that provided to factories and that provided to services. Then there were inevitable batch differences and service mixed paints.

Exactly Nick, other factors are the quality and quantity of materials, storage conditions, surface applied to, primer, mixing, application, number of coats... all this against a backdrop off a country at war that was more concerned that aircraft were serviceable than if the underside colour matched a the notes memo.

Any one of John's brush-outs could, theoretically, be correct.

[daz greenwood]

So IF I was to build a Spitfire I could paint it Humbrol 90 and I wouldn't be wrong?

Edited November 15, 2009 by daz greenwood

[T-Tango]

So IF I was to build a Spitfire I could paint it Humbrol 90 and I wouldn't be wrong?

Sounds to me Daz, with all these different colours, shades and mixes you could paint it any colour you wanted and it would be correct.

[daz greenwood]

Ok Black it is

Edited November 15, 2009 by daz greenwood

[T-Tango]

Ok Black it is

Go for it.

A nightfighter.

Edited November 15, 2009 by T-Tango

[Stonar]

So IF I was to build a Spitfire I could paint it Humbrol 90 and I wouldn't be wrong?

Thank you Daz, the very question I was pondering!

[daz greenwood]

You're welcome I usually paint my RAF A/C cockpits Humbrol 78, no matter what WW2 RAF type.

(I'm also in the Edgar supporter's club)

Edited November 15, 2009 by daz greenwood

[daz greenwood]

Go for it.

A nightfighter.

Nope Pete Black as an interior colour

[Nick Millman]

"So IF I was to build a Spitfire I could paint it Humbrol 90 and I wouldn't be wrong?"

The concept of "correct" when it comes to paint colour is relative because everybody has a different idea of how far different is different! I hope that my post about 90 (bearing in mind Edgar reported it is going to be changed/has changed to be closer to Sky) demonstrates that it is the same or very similar hue (or colour group) as Sky - just a different chroma (intensity of colour) and lightness (degree of brightness) - or at least the tin I examined was!

There is, however, a significant difference between varieties of the same hue and completely different hues. In John's demonstration all the colours are different but they are all recognisable as versions or variants of Sky, with the possible exception of the Tamiya which in the photograph looks more like a sage green (that may be just the photo). There are no obvious light blues, or dare I say it, greys. I can almost guarantee that if you took these colours as individual samples and compared them to a real Spitfire, say, you would conclude that they were reasonable matches, especially if you did so distanced in time and location, e.g. you look at the real Spitfire then when you get home you look at the paint sample.

One of the biggest problems, especially with small scale models, is the degree of difference in chroma and lightness and it is more often those factors that get picked up when people say "That colour looks wrong" rather than the hue. This is the basis of most arguments over "scale colour" and how to achieve it without radically shifting the perception of hue. Many people making visual matches between colour standards, chips or paints tend to do one of two things:-

1) They either choose a colour that is closer in relative brightness but not so close in hue; or

2) They focus on the hue and are less sensitive to any brightness differences.

Which is why colour measuring equipment and software takes away the subjectivity and dependence on perception. Of course there is still a margin of error but it is considerably less than that inherent in visual subjective matching. As my good friend Bill Leyh once stated: "Computers rarely have an agenda to pursue. And they're not colour blind. It's all numbers to them - and all numbers are equal".

The second thing that happens is that once the closest match in a standard is quoted the original tends to become that colour and the amount of difference, if any, is not quantified. Those websites that provide vast tables of matches across paint ranges - do you really think they have obtained all the paints, sat down, painted out swatches and then measured and compared them? No, most are based on the paint brands own data or by comparing paint charts. The accuracy of that is not quantifiable. Some matches may be spot on whilst others are way off.

At the end of the day is it down to the individual to make an informed decision, even if all too often the information being used to inform is, shall we say, somewhat "iffy" to begin with.

A much smaller proportion of women are colour blind than men and on average they have better colour perception so it is always useful to get second opinions from the wife, girlfriend, mother - or even mother-in-law.

[Edgar]

Then it is for me to apologise. In my defence, I was taking what you had posted at face value and I was presuming that you would then go ahead to explain what other comparisons you had made. As you have done.

I went back through the thread looking for your posting where you listed all the examples that you had studied, so that I could isolate the particular quote, but cannot find it. Was it from another thread altogether?

No, in an (admitted) fit of pique (for which I must apologise,) thinking that there was no interest in my findings, I ditched it. To be a little more full, there is a book (one of two) by a Hiroshi Seo, which has a photo of the S6B cockpit, clearly taken with a fish-eye lens, and flash, which looks to be close to 90. I have a photo (somewhere) of AB910's cockpit, taken, in daylight, by me in the 1970s, which shows a colour very akin to 90. I also have a set of photos, commercially available to flying-scale modellers in the 1960s, also of AB910, and also photographed out-of-doors, which shows the same green.

Around 1980, I visited the RAF Museum's reserve collection, at St.Athan, and photographed a Mk.IX (probably rebuilt by now,) using said (Braun) flash, and the photos show a green like 90.

Knowing that the Rochester rebuilders had had to have a special paint mixed, for the cockpit (which made me suspect that it wasn't 78,) I tried to look inside K9942, at Cosford, but was left in no doubt that personal injury might follow, if I continued. Since then a photograph has appeared, taken (professionally?) during a mayoral visit to see the rebuilding work at Rochester, and it, too, appears to be 90. (It was doubly annoying to miss out on seeing inside, because I wanted to look at a very early seat/harness set-up, but that's another story.)

There is a Walrus, at Hendon, plus another at Yeovilton, possibly rebuilt, but the interior colour is 90, not 78. More tenuous, since they might have been rebuilt, the wheel wells of the BBMF XIXs are 90.

I have photos, taken by me about 20 years ago, of AR213, and now, looking at them properly, it's possible to see the cockpit, and the engine bearers, were 90. I have one photo of an untouched Mk.V cockpit, which was sitting, waitng its turn for rebuild, in a workshop, and it's 90. It's entirely possible, of course, that the blare of the flash could have affected some of the colours, but not all, and then there are the outdoor photos.

One of the Humbrol charts that we used, when checking AR213's parts, was the "Colour System" book, which was supposed to be their most accurate reference, ever. I'll repeat the question, that I asked earlier; why, if 90 always was Sky, did Humbrol give a four colour mix (160x34, 5x101, 4x99, 1x60) for Sky, in that system?

One other intriguing question surfaced, during a recent visit to Hendon. In their box of colour chips/cards, I found one for the cockpit(?) grey-green, but it's post-war. So, why did the authorities issue a sample for an obsolescent colour, when cockpits were going over to black? My thought is that, maybe, this is actually the grey-green that was used for the outside of the Irish airframes, and it just happens to be the same as the cockpit green. An unanswerable question, at the moment, I fear.

Edgar

[Nick Millman]

"I'll repeat the question, that I asked earlier; why, if 90 always was Sky, did Humbrol give a four colour mix (160x34, 5x101, 4x99, 1x60) for Sky, in that system?"

And I'll repeat my earlier reply. It wasn't:-

"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."

[daz greenwood]

Ok so if a Spitfire is Humbrol 90 (or equivalent inside), would the L/G bays and U/C be the same colour?

[kitnut617]

A question to Edgar, I've a complete set of 'Aircraft of the Fighting Powers' which was my Father's, he got them during and just after the war. In two or three of the volumns (there's seven total) there's a full page of colour chips of colours used by the RAF and FAA. I imagine you might have these or access to some, but how close are these colour chips to the colours being discussed here.

Robert

[Edgar]

Sorry, Robert, I had a (nearly) full set of the WWII volumes, but I loaned them to a local ATC Squadron, who "lost" them. All I have, now, is the RAF Museum volume, first edition, and we know that the then curator was an absolute stickler for accuracy, so I've always used that as my guide. During a visit to the museum, I did manage to check it against their cache of samples, and it's still very accurate.

Ok so if a Spitfire is Humbrol 90 (or equivalent inside), would the L/G bays and U/C be the same colour?

Yes, to the first, and unlikely to the second. Door interiors were usually initially painted silver, but if there was a repaint, all bets are off. U/c legs were also silver, but had to be completely stripped down, then washed in paraffin, during servicing. This would have wrecked the paint finish, so the leg would have needed a repaint on reassembly, and the rigger would probably have used whatever came to hand.

Edgar

Edited November 15, 2009 by Edgar

[kitnut617]

Thanks Edgar, I'll be using these then myself.

[daz greenwood]

Ok thank you for that Edgar.