I have the new Aero sheet on B of B Spitfires featuring DW*K. The sheet correctly shows the "DW" in front of the roundel on the port side and indicates that the "DW" on the starboard is on the **trailing edge** of the roundel.
The old Aero sheet features DW*O and correctly shows the "DW" on the port side in front of the roundel. HOWEVER, this sheet indicates that the "DW" on the starboard side remains in **front** of the roundel ie not on the trailing edge.
So these two sheets disagree in their placement of the starboard "DW". One says that the starboard "DW", looking from the starboard side, is to the left of the roundel (**trailing edge**) while the other places the "DW" to the right of the roundel.
Which his right? Could they both be right? It's not beyond the realm of reality for both to be right. Stranger things have happened.
Second question: The new sheet indicates DW*K carried a "Duck Egg Blue" underside. The old sheet indicates a "Sky" underside DW*O. Are both right?
From what I read many decades ago, this was before the 'fat cat' multi-national paint companies ;-)
In the field, men had not a lot of time, tins of blue, green, white and other stuff and had to use a bucket and wooden stick (both still available) to get what they wanted.
Normally you'll have the double letter forward of the roundel on both sides of the plane, with individual letter aft. Only reason to change that would be a commanders aircraft with initials on it, like R*B for Roland Beaumont, wouldn't do to change those around. 8^)
Second answer first: 'Sky' as the official color name the RAF used, whilst Duck Egg Blue (aka Pale Green aka Pale Blue) was a popular name often used in official documents, but it was exactly the same paint. There were inevitably color variations, which could result from nothing more than inadequate stirring of the official paint, but it would be next to impossible to document the specifics for any given airframe. either use a standard 'Sky' paint, or add a little blue or green until you get something you think is better.
First Answer: You'd need photos to know. Usually the letter or letters ahead of the roundel on one side would also be ahead of the roundel on the other side. There are plenty of examples where the single letter led, and also many where the pair of letters led. There are also examples where the single letter led on one side and the pair of letters on the opposite side of the same airplane.
Checking some reference pics the odd thing about DW*O was the tri colour on the tail was painted back to front, ( blue to the front.) even in black and white pictures you can notice it, seems like it was left that way. regards JimboD
Can't comment on DW*K but a pic I have of Spitfire Mk. Is, DW*J, DW*H = and DW*D of 610Sqn during May 1940 shows the "DW" to the left (trailing = edge) of the starboard roundel. Book also contains profile of DW*Q again = with DW to trailing edge. Also says sky undersurfaces were introduced = from 6th June 1940.
The excellent new Aviation Workshop monograph, Britain Alone (On Target Special No.2) by Paul Lucas has P9496, a DW*L of August 1940 (with the fin stripes the wrong way round!) and Profiles 4, Spitfire Mk I to VI in the ETO by Jon Freeman from the same publisher has P9495, a DW*K of June-July 1940. Both of these have the codes reading DW* on both sides. What serial number does your sheet have for their DW*O? The Tamiya 1/48th Spitfire I has DW*O as an option, theirs is L1043 and again has the codeletter placement DW*O - third-hand information, though.
There are many instances of aircraft marked with the sqadron code letters forward of the roundel on both port and starboard side. Photographs of the original are the only reliable way of telling, preferably with a date and serial number, as during the BoB there may have been several DW*O's for instance.
Paul Lucas has a good section on the colour of Sky in his monograph referenced above. To summarise, the RAE at Farnborough adopted Sidney Cotton's Camotint from the PDU at Heston and renamed it Sky. This is the light grey-green shade. At the same time they set a new standard for the surface finish, called Type S. (so the term Sky, Type S means the colour Sky made to the Type S standard of finish). In June 1940 the Air Ministry told all day fighter units to repaint their undersurfaces in Sky, Type S.
But the paint industry hadn't managed to get much made - this was a new type of paint, remember, Type S. So Squadrons were asking Stores for Sky paint and being told there was none available. Thrown back on their own resources, they had to first find out what colour Sky actually was! The Air Ministry when asked described it as Duck Egg Bluish Green - which I get the feeling was ministry-speak for "buggered if I know, squire" :-)
Lucas' research, matching paint samples from various preserved aircraft bits, provides convincing evidence for six shades being used on BoB-period aircraft.
1) Sky Grey - light grey
2) Sky - the light grey-green Camotint-inspired shade
3) Sky Blue - light powder blue
4) BS381(1930) No.16 Eau-de-Nil - pale green (Duck-egg Green?)
5) BS381(1930) No.1 Sky Blue - aquamarine blue (Duck-egg Blue?)
6) an unidentified light blue-grey seen on some Gloster-built Hurricanes.
Apart from the last, all of these would have been available in the supply chain, and if Sky wasn't available, the Squadrons would have used the next nearest shade they could get their hands on. Even photographs aren't going to help you decide which shade to use - much research, using recent publications, is indicated. I think many older publications may have gone with the official Air Ministry line (Sky, Type S).
Lucas's DW*L has RAE Sky Blue undersides and Freeman's DW*K has BS381 No.1 Sky Blue. In both cases the authors say only that these were "probably" the actual colours used. With no more justification than that, I'm going to paint my Tamiya Spitfire Sky Blue underneath, coz its a nicer colour :-)
These Aviation Workshop publications are very good on this subject, see their website
The upshot of all this being - you pays your money and you takes your chances; or, don't get too hung up on the exact colour of aircraft camouflage. Paint it until it looks good to you and if anyone complains, ask to see the irrefutable, documented, pictorial testimony from the bloke who painted the real kite in194*. If they can't show you - ignore 'em. ;)
Oh, yes. Throw in scale colour and weathering and you are chasing an impossible target. However, there is some merit to using model paints that match the original shades closely, which is that the finished article looks right in terms of /relative/ colour values: for instance modern UK Tornadoes are Barley Grey over Light Aircraft Grey (I think), a fairly subtle difference. Similarly, even I can tell the difference between green, blue and grey on the underside of a Spitfire.
I got into this researching the markings for Bob Stanford Tucks Hurricane DT*A. I always thought it had Sky(green) undersides, a white tailband and rear spinner. BUT everyone says the standard Fighter Command tailband was Sky, but in photos of DT*A it is clearly lighter than the underside...
Paul Lucas says that the tailband and spinner colour was RAE Sky Blue, the pale powder blue, and moreover this continued on all Fighter Command aircraft until mid-41 and the arrival of the Dark Green-Ocean Grey-Medium Sea Grey scheme. So all those decal sheets and kit instructions with green tailbands for BoB fighters are inaccurate! (including my Tamiya 1/48 Mk.I) Sky, but not the Sky you first thought of.... oh dear.
Paul Lucas also writes of the multiple Sky type S variations in SAM's "Battle for Britain." As you pointed out, one can mix their own just like it happened back in '40. Cheers,
Hey, even the RAF get it wrong! I was told by one of the aircrew at RAF Brize Norton that there was a shamed Nimrod from St. Mawgan that had to be flown off base if the AOC was on his way. It seems that the RAF use something like a 12-digit serial to denote paint colour and they got a digit out, so instead of a two tone hemp type shade they got chocolate and cream! ;-)
On a serious side the initial poster might want to read up histories of front line squadrons, especially of the actual squadron. I'll phone up Colin Brown who does a lot of research of aircraft archaeologists and see if he can recommend a book. Failing that and if the weather is okay, I'll be at Biggin Hill this weekend and will look out for books.
Well said, Rob. About time someone spoke a bit of commonsense on this thread. It's all very well to argue the academics of the issue but if there's no proof either way, then why sweat over it?
That's the beauty of modelling battle-weary and weathered aircraft and equipment - they would never have looked the same on any two days. There's plenty of scope for artistic liecnce. Our model is our canvas and we are the artist.
I saw a classic example a few years ago - in WH Smiths (a large magazine/book outlet here in the UK)
On the shelves was the latest issue of Air Forces Monthly magazine - with a great colour pic of the Russian Beriev A-40 amphibian on the front cover.
There were so many copies of this mag that they had put them into two 'piles' - and the cover photo had a different shade of grey on one pile than the other !!!
Same magazine, same aircraft, same photo - different print runs !!!!
Oh Yes! This stirs a memory, something becoming harder and harder to do these days. Many years ago a couple of friends and I were working on models in the cellar and arguing about the correct shade to use for Olive Drab. My Father had just come in from work and was listening and he started to laugh. "Boys, I could stand on the flight line in 1943 and there would be 9 B-17s lined up for a mission and each one would be a different color. The oldest would usually, but not always, be the lightest. If the plane had had a lot of touching up it could look real patchy and major repair work could lead to anything." Now O.D. is perhaps an extreme example to use here. As Father explained it, the pigments used in O.D. were a problem. I have since researched this and they were Yellow Ochre (an iron oxide), an ultra-marine blue, and black (carbon black), The yellow ochre was a very heavy pigment and over time would settle very firmly at the bottom of the can. The carbon black was lighter in weight and the blue sort of in between. If the can wasn't well stirred, the paint would go on with a shade quite different from what the boys in the Pentagon envisioned. Point is, it doesn't pay to get too pedantic on these things. And as for accuracy of color photography! That's a whole nother can of worms.
When I typed that I was thinking of the film, Reach For The Sky and the reality from the AOC (or whoever it was) when getting a telegram stating that Squadron 242 was non-operational I'd bet he'd have replied "who is this messing around ? Get up there or I'll tear you a new arse!"
It's not actually! I remember rubbing my finger over various parked aircraft including the Lanc' at a photo day many years ago and they do seem to get a semi-opaque white bloom. I did also read that some bomber squadrons did have the same variation of squadron code placing also, fore or aft of the roundel but it only muddies the water.
I'm surprised that the light/scale question didn't come up! Shhh, don't mention it.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.