American Volunteer Group P-40 Tomahawk colours?

[Test Graham]

Just to return to the original subject - well, almost. Will a new (at least to me) colour photo of a P-400 interest people?

http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=11483.0

Interesting underside colour... although perhaps not the best reproduction overall, the underside seems to be something other than a plain (neutral) light grey. Or gray.

[Dave Fleming]

Just to return to the original subject - well, almost. Will a new (at least to me) colour photo of a P-400 interest people?

http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=11483.0

Interesting underside colour... although perhaps not the best reproduction overall, the underside seems to be something other than a plain (neutral) light grey. Or gray.

Looks not unlike the blue/gray on the underside of the flying shot of the pre-delivery RAF airacobra

[Fernando]

Woohoo!! I got a Zero. Do I get a prize?

"All o'em say the same, these fighter pilots; for sure it was a Ki.30!"

[Dave Fleming]

71-021 occupies a subtle colour space of pale blue-green. Whilst the Munsell value for it is a green-yellow (like Sky) the closest FS value of 25622 is blue predominant. People perceive the colour differently, some seeing it as more blueish, others as more greenish and some only see a light grey. That is a receptive and subjective aspect that does not relate to the actual measured colour values. Before discussing whether this pale blue-green is actually blue or green here is an online test you can take to assess your own colour acuity:-

FM100 Hue Test

It's fun. I scored 0 in the test (you don't want a high score).

I got 15, which wasn't too bad on my little laptop monitor

[HBBates]

FYI if any one had see these AVG Tomahawk photos before

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675040...ian-city-harbor

[Nick Millman]

BTW, the P-61 specs called for two primer coats on surfaces, Northorp saved a lot of cash when it applied none.

I had not responded to this comment in my earlier reply because I wanted to check it out first. In fact the Northrop episode is an example of an inappropriate compliance but your soundbite doesn't reveal the full story. It has its roots in the Spec.24114 (E-1b) authorisation of two paint types for coating metal surfaces - lacquer to Spec. 14105 and enamel to Spec. 14109.

Northrop adhered perfectly to Technical Order 07-1-1 of 8 Apr 1941 which stated quite clearly at Para 1e that:-

"Either of these types may be used, subject to provisions of subpara.b. It will be noted that the use of enamel, camouflage, Spec.14109 on metal surfaces requires the use of but one (1) coat of enamel and that no primer coat is necessary." (my emphasis)

(Subpara.b relates to use of enamel over lacquer and vice versa.)

Northrop were later criticised for failing to adhere to subsequent specs which superceded this and made it clear that even with enamel finishes primer coats were required but the question of where the blame lay was never resolved because the issue of the communication and receipt of changes and revisions came up. This came about precisely because the USAAF were investigating and enforcing compliance to spec. as a result of quality issues reported by recipients. The implied accusation that Northrop deliberately omitted the primer coat to "save cash" seems highly speculative and tenuous given the existence of and their compliance to the earlier Technical Order instructing that a primer coat was unnecessary with enamel finishes.

The unsatisfactory finish of the P-61 as reported from theatre was discussed at the Material Laboratory (WF) in March 1945 and related to the new Jet (ANA 622) finish (gloss black) being applied to the type. Tests concluded that it was partly due to the absence of primer and partly due to the type of enamel being used. As a result of these tests the MatLab advised the Procurement Section to provide Northrop with the latest list of approved specs and to request them to apply a coat of zinc chromate primer before applying two coats of 622 lacquer. They also advised that the materials being used by Northrop be checked for conformance to spec. requirements. The 622 finish was new and there seem to have been no issues with the previously applied OD on the P-61.

So the P-61 issue is irrelevant to the question of Tomahawk colours except to suggest that any complaints from end users (where made) were not ignored but rather investigated and referenced to the original specification requirements!

PS I can't find a reference to two coats of primer - only to Spec.24114-A of Sep 1942 requiring one coat of primer and either two coats of lacquer or one of enamel. This was reiterated generally in Technical Order 07-1-1 of 15 Jun 1943 "It will be noted that the use of both types of materials for metal (lacquer and enamel) require use of primer, zinc chromate." As the Technical Order revisions did not change the T.O. number but only the date Northrop's inappropriate compliance may be understood.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Nick Millman

[gingerbob]

Excellent, Nick! I knew there had to be more to that story, and even if it is irrelevant to the purpose of the thread, I'm glad you addressed it.

bob

[thx6667]

Good stuff Nick, strikes me that there's an element of Northrop following previous (and perfectly legitimate) specs through a lack of communication more than deliberate perfidy, and this being misinterpreted down the years.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Jonathan Mock

[Nobby Clarke]

I'm building a couple of AVG Tomahawks and I' wondering whether there has been any further information or determination on the questions that Hume Bates raised earlier in this post (2011). Namely, what paint was used at the Curtiss factory for the underwing areas and insides of the fairings and doors that cover the undercarriage. In the 2011 time frame the debate was whether Curtiss sprayed the wing undersides top coat color or used the Curtiss green/yellow primer. I have similar questions about the tail wheel housing.

Both main gear and tail wheel have a fabric liner (rubberized?) in the wheel wells and around the tail wheel. The LIFE photo of a the unpainted wing under construction appears to show the wheel well liner to be painted the same green/yellow as the primer, but restored aircraft have this as a beige/khaki canvas liner. I have sen another photo of a P-40 wreck that shows the tail wheel liner to be a brown/khaki colour. Are these colours still thought to be accurate?

[72modeler]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2011 at 2:31 AM, Nick Millman said:

It's fun. I scored 0 in the test (you don't want a high score).

Nick,

 

Very interesting discussion and test. I just now came back to this topic and saw the hue test. I also scored a 'zero' Guess that's why my modeling buddies ask me to mix paint to color chips or FS cards!

Mike

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Interesting ? I cant do the hue test with my phone ? 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Corsairfoxfouruncle

[Allan31]

Since it seems no actual FS color is called out or referred to by Curtiss or anyone else, color photos and "close enough" is going to have to do..

 

Here is what I have, I am going with a neutral to warm, light grey and I will be able to sleep at night after looking at these photos for my reference...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Allan31

[LDSModeller]

38 minutes ago, Allan31 said:

Since it seems no actual FS color is called out or referred to by Curtiss or anyone else, color photos and "close enough" is going to have to do..

Since FS Numbers didn't exist in WWII (a Post WWII thing ), then FS call outs for paint numbers won't come

into the equation.

I also believe it's been established that the lower colours for RAF orders for the P40's (which the AVG flew) was

DuPont 71-021, Sky Type S-Grey - a Duck Egg Blue/Green colour. I would suggest going back and read Nick

Millman's comments (Post # 15)

 

This AVG P40 screen shot (1st aircraft) certainly appears that colour (note main undercart door nearest camera)

AVG P40

 

Also reading the Nobby's comments (Post #59), I read it, he is asking what the interior colour

is for the wheel well doors, and what colour is the Liner of main and tail wheels as in this

LIFE magazine photo

FWIW, I believe the liner in the photo is a Khaki colour

 

Regards

 

Alan

[Luka]

There was a great article on Rato Marczak's site on this subject, but when I tried to look it up, it seems to have vanished..
I have asked him through facebook if he decided to really delete his site or if this is some other interweb mess (his site seemed to have had some issues in the past). I saw he had been active recently on his fb modeling page, so I doubt he is done with modeling. I'll post it here when I have more answers.

Also; this;
http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P40/P40-WARH.JPG

[Allan31]

What is this? a contemporary shot? Looks too good to be from period..

 

[Chuck1945]

That is a P-40E in the photo and while AVG did receive a few E models before disbanding, it most likely is a warbird painted to represent an AVG Tomahawk 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Chuck1945

[72modeler]

2 hours ago, Chuck1945 said:

That is a P-40E in the photo and while AVG did receive a few E models before disbanding, it most likely is a warbird painted to represent an AVG Tomahawk 

Pretty much think so, too, as you can see the mount and the aerial for a  modern  antenna just behind the tail wheel bay- a common fit and location on many preserved flying warbirds, with either side of the fin being another common location.

Mike

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

I beg to differ gentlemen ? If you blow the photo up there is a seam running down the center line. I think its a model thats been built to look like a tiger. Then it was photoshopped into the sky.  

[fubar57]

Something odd about the pitot tube

[mhaselden]

1 hour ago, fubar57 said:

Something odd about the pitot tube

 

I think it's a standard L-shaped pitot tube with a flaw in the photo (perhaps a hair on the print or scanner) giving the appearance of a loop on the end of the tube.

[Rob G]

What ^ he said.

[J.C. Bahr]

My first thought on seeing that photo is that it's an older period airshow photo of the Commemorative Air Force's P-40N that has been painted as a Flying Tiger for YEARS!

[Luka]

I'm sorry, I cannot verify any authenticity (wartime colour photo or not) of the picture I posted. If it's indeed a post-war reconstruction, I'll stand corrected. However, I'm not convinced it's the CAF P-40N.

Anyways, Rato Marczak's site is up again, and he did some of his own colour research on AVG planes. As a modeler, he translated this into workable mixtures. Of course in the end it may still be a matter of opinion and what value it has for individual modelers.
http://www.ratomodeling.com/articles/AVG_cammo/

[BS_w]

To see the camera fairing under the wing and the identification light under the right wing fillet, this is an E-1.

E & N1 hadn't reco light and N-5 & subsequent had 3 downward lights, 1 in the rear of keel fairing and 2 in the rear fuselage.

N hadn't electric tab built in the port aileron but a single tab which protrude the trailing edge identical as the starboard side.

It's possible that Pitot tube is cranked but not easy to see on this picture.

Edited April 28, 2019 by BS_w

[silberpferd]

On 27/04/2019 at 15:14, Allan31 said:

What is this? a contemporary shot? Looks too good to be from period..

 

This is most likely this P-40E

 

http://www.p40warhawk.com/P-40sToday/DickPhillips/P-40E_N940AK/P-40E_N940AK.htm

 

that had an AVG scheme in the 80s.

 

Laurent