Hawker Typhoon prototype P5212 - NIVO over aluminium?

[Dave Fleming]

I've been following this with interest as I've a couple of prototype Typhoons to build. But I have to say the colour scheme NIVO is completely new to me as I've never heard or seen it mentioned before. What is NIVO please?

In colour terms, apparently quite close to Dark Slate Grey.

[sloegin57]

Earlier than Feb 1940 woould be a bit early for Sky. I think the wings (and tailplane) are black and white undersides, the fuselage appears to be uniform overall.

Does anyone know what colour of primer was Hawker using at that time?

My thoughts exactly. Hawkers, together with de Haviland and Glosters were using a Dark Grey Primer on metal surfaces at the time, replaced about a year later with two Universal Primers designed for use with both Cellulose and Synthetic paints. One of the latter was also Grey, the other a Dark reddish-brown colour, the difference, apparently, depending on the manufacturer. In another thread, Edgar has listed these as UP1 and UP2 although I have seen nothing in Official Docs to substantiate this (c'mon Edgard - tell all !). The Grey Primer was certainly in use by both Handley-Page and de Haviland on both the Comet and early Victors well into the late fifties and early sixties judging by the bits of both I have, the one used on the Victor being slightly darker.

It would not surprise me to find that the upper surface colour on the prototype Typhoon was Dark Grey primer as Hawker, later Hawker-Siddeley seem to carry out first flights on most of their aircraft unpainted, look at shots of Sea Harrier and Hawks in more recent years. The under surface colours would have been almost mandatory in those days (1940) as identifying colours and to prevent the anti-aircraft gunners of the day blasting away at a valuable prototype.

However.........I can always have my mind changed !!!!!

Dennis W Robinson

[Edgar]

In another thread, Edgar has listed these as UP1 and UP2 although I have seen nothing in Official Docs to substantiate this (c'mon Edgar - tell all !).

Nothing magical about it; drawing 30000 sht. 28 lists them for the Spitfire, and both UP1 & UP2 are listed as grey, not red. The rudder instructions are somewhat enigmatic, being aluminium over the primers inside, and with an "approved doping scheme" on the exterior. Bruce Robertson was given a handwritten note, presumably by a fabric worker, in which he states that the intermediate silver, on the exterior, was discontinued during the war.

In February, 1981, (in Scale Models?) Ian Huntley wrote about NIVO, saying that samples were forwarded to the RAF Museum (they still have them.) He lists NIVO as being a grey blue-green, and cites 34096 29F2 as a match. I'm not going to put the whole page on here, but the basic varnish was a mix of nitro-cellulose syrup, butyl acetate, amyl acetate, alcohol, benzol, acetone and castor oil, to which the pigments were added, to produce NIVO, matt black V.BL.4, red V.N.R.5, blue V.N.B.6 (aka Night, Ident Red [Dull] & Ident Blue [Dull].) And, before anyone leaps in, and says, "See, I told you that dull red and blue were pre-war colours," the sample card states that they were cancelled in 1935. The card gives the impression that bombers carried the dull roundel colours, while fighters, perhaps, carried brighter shades.

If NIVO ceased to exist in the mid-1930s, it seems strange (to me, anyway) that they would have hung onto it, for 5 years, then painted a day fighter (however it had been primed) with a colour designed for a night bomber .

As a matter of interest, during 1942 tests on a better colour than matt black for nightfighters, D.O.R., of the Air Ministry, told H.Q. Fighter Command that "the standard dark green and ocean grey colours are similar in appearance to Nivo and dark grey, and when these paints are manufactured to give a mat finish, they have the same reflectivity" Note that it does not say the same colour.

Edgar

P.S. This is the musuem's card, probably supplied by Mr. Huntley.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Edgar

[Chris Thomas]

Chris, in your better quality photos, can you see a change from the DE/DG to aluminium under the rear of the fuselage? I am struggling to see any change- could it have had wrap-around camouflage?

Ben, good spot! I had fallen into the trap of assuming the rear undersides were Aluminium (as suggested by someone else, earlier) as this was similar to the scheme applied to Hurricanes at that time. However if the upper surfaces were camouflaged DE/DG (or mid grey or, spare us, bloody NIVO) there would be some contrast between the upper and lower surfaces in Aluminium (even on ortho film!). I conclude that in fact the camouflage wrapped right round the fuselage as far as the forward extent of the rear fuselage monococque.

This rang a bell and when I checked photos of P5219, the first Tornado, it too appears to have camouflage wrapped round the fuselage. This opens another bag of worms - what colour were the under surfaces of the tailplane. All we have to go on are views of the starboard side and on the photos of both P5212 and P5219, they look to me like they could be white rather than Aluminium. If so, it begs the question of the colour of the under surface of the port tailplane ... black?

Chris

[Nick Millman]

It's a strange NIVO indeed that can be made by mixing red (even a dull brick red), blue and black together to get a grey blue-green, let alone FS 34096 or Methuen 29 F 2!

If Night was identical to matt black - or even Ident black V.BL.4 for that matter - why was it called Night?

I don't have the values to hand, but when I measured the RAF book chip for Night, which even looks black, it wasn't - IIRC it was a Munsell PB (Purple Blue) value. Anyone who thinks adding ultramarine to black makes no difference to the black colour - or results in a dark grey - should try it. There are two basic ultramarines, natural and synthetic, and they give different results.

Also check the Wimpey photo posted in the Dark Earth thread, with the "matt black" usefully illuminated by strong sunlight and appearing remarkably similar to what can be expected from a carbon black + ultramarine mix.

[Max Headroom]

If I can add my ha'penny worth into the discussion, I knew that Hendons and Heyfords were camo'd this way - the Wiki list is longer. I had read somewhere many years ago that it could also have been used as anti glare panels on the inter war biplane types.

I mist admit that I always thought it to be near to what ended up as Dark Green?

Trevor

[Max Headroom]

These are not the best pics, I can't scan here, but if anyone has 'Typhoon and Tempest at War', there is large pic of the Typhoon prototype on page 18-19 and same pic, smaller, but showing fin on 20-21 clearly showing a single upper surface colour, and quite a high gloss too.

Troy

Just had a look at my copy and I agree, you can't see any demarcation. On p.21 though is a pic of the prototype after it's prang. I may be wishing this but I *think* I can see a vertical wavy line midway between the roundel and one of the tears in the fuselage.

However, I also noticed clearly stencilled under the fuselage window "41H 101664". Isn't that a paint reference?

Given that the prototype first flew in February 1940 and it had the accident that following May it may not have been repainted?

Trevor

T

[Troy Smith]

Hi Trevor and everyone else who has contributed to this fascinating thread.

Just had a look at my copy and I agree, you can't see any demarcation. On p.21 though is a pic of the prototype after it's prang. I may be wishing this but I *think* I can see a vertical wavy line midway between the roundel and one of the tears in the fuselage.

However, I also noticed clearly stencilled under the fuselage window "41H 101664". Isn't that a paint reference?

Given that the prototype first flew in February 1940 and it had the accident that following May it may not have been repainted?

I finally got to do some scanning, these are posted as "fair use" I hope someone here knows if "41H 101664" is a paint ref.

This is the one you refer too, note that when rolled out the Typhoon prototype has no stencils visible, but when the fuselage split it has stencils visible. I added white arrows.

Top Prototype as first rolled out, below second prototype, right, split fuselage.

Note in the split fuselage pic the japanned black interior framework (like the Hurricane prototype) and possibly aluminum dope inside. It may or may not be camouflaged, see below

The line by the roundel may just be from the buckling.

The high gloss of the rollout scheme is well shown in the light reflecting from the tailplanes, and also lack of stenciling, (compare to Tornado prototype shown below)

larger version of the pic, no stencils visible.

P5212 survived long enough to to get a repainted, as can be seen in the pics below.

the left pic on orthochrome film, showing yellow undersides, and right, presumably later, with a 6 added to the nose. I have just noticed is say "Revised finish and markings" in the caption as well!

Below those, pic of 2nd prototype P5216 below, in standard scheme,

The Tornado prototype as first flown, note camouflage and stencils (arrowed) there are two on the tail, and the wrapped under fuselage camo.

hope this helps the discussion.

T

[Edgar]

Paint vocab. nos usually began with 33A/ or (most often) 33B/ , followed by a two, or three, figure number. Also, the inspector's stamp had DTD, followed by the paint type (63A, 308, 517 etc.,) in its boundaries, but didn't normally include the vocab. no. I can't find 41H, but 41 allegedly referred to marine craft spares.

Edgar

[Chris Thomas]

Paint vocab. nos usually began with 33A/ or (most often) 33B/ , followed by a two, or three, figure number. Also, the inspector's stamp had DTD, followed by the paint type (63A, 308, 517 etc.,) in its boundaries, but didn't normally include the vocab. no. I can't find 41H, but 41 allegedly referred to marine craft spares.

Edgar

I think 41H is 'Hawker' Edgar.

In the scan from Typhoon at War that Troy has posted, the photo captioned as being the 'second prototype' (a figure 'B' in the corner) is in fact the first prototype after a number of mods, including marking changes. It often used to be miscaptioned as 'P5216' (ie the 2nd prototype) but the photo is taken from the A&AEE test report which at first quoted P5216 but was later corrected to read P5212. The photo was taken in the same sequence as the starboard side view below it (next to the one with a '6' on the nose).

The (camo?) line Troy has pointed out in the damaged fuselage shot is also visible in the big photo of P5212 and I think is more likely to have resulted from a repainting of the fuselage roundel - there are photos of P5212 under construction, with a 'B' type roundel on the fuselage, similar to the Tornado prototype. The visible line does not tie up with any expected camouflage demarcation.

Chris

[Edgar]

I found this, yesterday, in a file on Hurricane deliveries to the Middle East. It has to be camouflaged, but try finding the demarcations.

Edgar

[Nick Millman]

Just forward of and behind the roundel, in line with the front of the open canopy, at the rear of the exhaust . . .

Probably just my imagination.

[Troy Smith]

one point that got lost in my last post.

note the colour of the internal structure.

red arrow, is the black interior frame, the Hurricane prototype was japanned black.

but, is the rest in interior green or aluminuim dope?[ green arrow ] Note what is probably bare metal on the wing root.

the white arrows are the stencils not originally applied at rollout.

[BritJet]

I finally got to do some scanning, these are posted as "fair use" I hope someone here knows if "41H 101664" is a paint ref.

This is the one you refer too, note that when rolled out the Typhoon prototype has no stencils visible, but when the fuselage split it has stencils visible. I added white arrows.

The 41H number will be the Hawker construction number rather than a paint ref. This system was used right up until at least the Hunter.

Steve

[Troy Smith]

HI All

this one has been dormant for a while, one very good question was "Does anyone know what colour of primer was Hawker using at that time? "

I was looking at the but looking through the "Ducimus Camouflage and Markings no.4 Typhoon and Tempest" is says about the first Tornado prototype having "wing walks onto the upper surface had been left in Cerrux Grey primer"

What colour is Cerrux Grey?

I presume this was the Hawker primer colour. I personally quite fancy a model in a glossy grey primer, and my guess is the Cerrux Grey.

Any idea what a paint match for this would be?

[edit ] And when i bother to look, what else do i find but this thread here on BM...

Cerux [sic] Grey

Seems fS36440, matched by US Light Gull Grey, (like Xtracrylix XA1137)

see http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...st&p=188703

Second edit - (after a ponder)

Nick Millman in the Cerrux Thread states

I won't go into the chemistry but many of these "new" grey paints had a discernible slight yellowish or cream caste rather than being blue-greys.

And yellow on orthochromatic film comes out as black, so a grey with a yellow cast would come out looking darker than it usually appears?

The rest quoted below is are the relevant parts of the thread about the possible upper surface colour and possible explanations. If you are reading this for the first time the thread has raised some fascinating points.

Chris Thomas writes

"To illustrate my point, the photo to which Keith refers is captioned "... revised as per AMO 21, November 1940 ..." but the photo was taken at the Typhoon's 'roll-out' in February 1940. In January 1961 issue of Airfix Magazine (I was just 15 and churning out Frog and Airfix as fast as pocket money allowed!) M.J.F.Bowyer stated in his article on Typhoon markings, "P5212 ... first flew in dark green and dark earth upper surfaces". But in 'Fighting Colours', first published in 1969, he caption the same photo as mentioned above as ""P5212 ... in its original glossy grey finish, worn for only a short time before camouflage superseded it."

I have not come across any primary sources which detail the early prototype schemes - just other researchers' conclusions - which always begs the question 'where did they get their information?'"

and

"Further to my post above I thought I'd do a bit of digging on sources for the alleged grey upper surfaces on P5212. In addition to Mike Bowyers comment in 'Fighting Colours' (1969), Arthur Bentley's Typhoon plans (1974) give the prototype upper surfaces as "mid blue-grey". The same colour is quoted by F.K.Mason in Profile 81 (1966); could this publication have been the source for the other two? If so ... how likely is it to be accurate? As Mason worked for Hawker in the 50/60s it would seem likely that he found a firsthand source for the prototype's colours, however, the inaccuracy of some of the other colour information in his Profile on the Typhoon leaves a lingering doubt. Has anyone found any other sources? "

Dave Fleming"

"It was also a known practice in railways for 'new' classes to be painted in grey for their 'official' photograph then repainted into the service colours. "

Sloegin57/Dennis W Robinson

"My thoughts exactly. Hawkers, together with de Haviland and Glosters were using a Dark Grey Primer on metal surfaces at the time, replaced about a year later with two Universal Primers designed for use with both Cellulose and Synthetic paints. One of the latter was also Grey, the other a Dark reddish-brown colour, the difference, apparently, depending on the manufacturer. In another thread, Edgar has listed these as UP1 and UP2 although I have seen nothing in Official Docs to substantiate this (c'mon Edgard - tell all !). The Grey Primer was certainly in use by both Handley-Page and de Haviland on both the Comet and early Victors well into the late fifties and early sixties judging by the bits of both I have, the one used on the Victor being slightly darker.

It would not surprise me to find that the upper surface colour on the prototype Typhoon was Dark Grey primer as Hawker, later Hawker-Siddeley seem to carry out first flights on most of their aircraft unpainted, look at shots of Sea Harrier and Hawks in more recent years."

In the large pic I posted I can maybe see a line in front of the roundel that Chris mentions, but not in the later pic of the split fuselage, well, not in the same place.

One point, why the high gloss finish? The Tornado is in DE/DG, which are matt, why would you either highly polish or apply a coat of varnish?

The fact the Mason, who worked for Hawker's mentions specifically a blue-grey finish is interesting.

cheers

T

Edited December 9, 2010 by Troy Smith

[Troy Smith]

On 22/10/2010 at 12:41, Chris Thomas said:

I have some high quality scans from original photos taken at 'roll-out'. They clearly show black/white undersides with (presumably) 'Aluminium' rear fuselage and tailplane undersurfaces. Even under severe manipulation on photoshop I cannot get any indication of camouflage on the uppersurfaces. Was there a film type that gave no differentiation between dark green/earth?

 

while searching about for Spitfire III images,  I found some high quality one,  and looking at the them I was reminded of this thread...

anyway, AFAIK the Spitfire III was Dark Green/Dark Earth uppers,  and I'm hard pressed to see any sign of the ywo upper surface colours,  but seeing these side by side makes an interesting comparison.

 

 

 

 

Be interesting to know what gives this effect, film  type, and then a certain filter is my guess, along with the polishing?  

 

hope of interest

T

 

 

[Dave Fleming]

There was a practice of painting new locomotive classes grey for their B+W ‘record’ shot.

[gingerbob]

I just stumbled into this thread again, and since it has seen light of day fairly recently, I'll add that I have a note from Supermarine concerning the Spitfire III prototype, which says something along the lines of "standard camouflage colours, but in an 'eggshell' finish".  The use of 'eggshell' is perhaps strange (or maybe had different connotations than what we think of), but it seems perfectly clear that THIS prototype (spring '40) was in camouflage colours, but a glossier version/treatment.

 

Of course, this does not eliminate the possibility that a prototype might be incompletely painted at rollout, and then repainted in full or in part shortly thereafter.  Is it possible that the Hawker prototype(s) in question were painted in sections?  That might explain the monococque rear fuselage being done slightly differently than the wing/nose.  The stabs are right and left (identical?) pieces, so also could have been painted before attachment.  (Even if the fuselage was complete, a good portion of the forward section is removable panels.)