Everything we know is wrong (about WWII RAF camoflage)...

[GrumpyOldCrewChief]

OK, just couldn't pass up the "Firesign Theatre" reference, but it seems somewhat appropriate. Recently I found a photo (attached) that caused me to doubt the finishes we endeavor to place on our kits. Most of the camoflaged finishes are treated as all-matte, or all-gloss, but rarely mixed. This shot of a late-war Spitfire seems to cast some doubt on that, as the Green is clearly nowhere near as matte as the Grey. Was this only a late war development, or had RAF finishes always been so? The shades of the colors receive endless discussion (argument!), but much less attention seems to be devoted to the "luster" of the colors. Have I gone years in these (and other) forums and missed every reference to this condition?

 

[michael rauls]

Well thank God that's all it is. When I saw the title of this thread I thought maybe you were gonna tell us bacon isn't the most nutritious food in the world after all.

 

[GrumpyOldCrewChief]

Questioning the nutritional worth of bacon?!? Are you daft, man? Blasphemy, I say, blasphemy! I would never besmirch the reputation of that delicious carnivore candy...

 

[Crimea_River]

I'm certainly no expert but my understanding is that RAF WW2 aircraft left the factory in a matte finish. Matte is neither flat nor gloss but somewhere in between. There should be a slight sheen. That said, once a given aircraft gets out into the operational world, all sorts of things start happening to the finishes that will make them look different than when they left the factory.

The green in your picture looks much glossier than a factory finish and I agree that the grey appears to be much flatter. I'd suggest that we might be seeing the effects of spilled fuel that has been wiped down or possibly oil. The grey may be a field repair so painted by some erk. I'm not sure if RAF paints came pre-mixed or if separate flattening agents were added before painting. If the latter, then perhaps too much flattening agent? Just guessing.

 

[GrumpyOldCrewChief]

Well, the reason this has me doubting so severely any of the usual spilt fuel or field repaint theories is that this particular aviator is kitted out in a test pilot's outfit, so this is most likely a pre-acceptance test flight, or possibly a ferry flight. And the Green can still be seen carrying its RAF color coating code. There is virtually no other wear or grime visible in this shot, so...

 

[Wurger]

There is virtually no other wear or grime visible in this shot, so...

Actually it is not true. The enlarged shot reveals traces of wiping down at the cockpit area. It can be seen for the Ocean Grey paint especially. Also , the green colour has the two tones. the one can be noticed from the right to the seat belt and then the another one more matt from the seat belt to the left that is a little bit darker. It may suggest that the green paint was just re-applied what caused its more shiny appearance. But I agree with Crimea River it is more likely it may be the result of cleaning with a rag soaked with a kind of a thinner. That's my three cents.

 

[Airframes]

I agree.
The pilot looks like "Mr. Spitfire" himself, Alex Henshaw, the Chief Test Pilot, and the pic looks very much like a publicity or other 'official' shot.
If this is the case, and I believe it is, then it's highly likely that any blemishes, fluid spills or exhaust stains were cleaned off and wiped down specifically for this photo shoot, which was more than likely taken at the Castle Bromwich facory, not a RAF airfield.
RAF paints of the period were the 'Type S', that is, Smooth Matt which, as Andy mentioned, had a slight sheen, but were 'duller' than a satin finish. This finish tended to 'hold' dirt and grime, and many aircraft looked quite grubby up close, not always apparent in period photos. One of the ways RAF (and civilian) ground crew removed the worst of the grime, when possible and / or required, was to wipe down with a rag soaked in petrol or paraffin and then wrung out, and this pic appears to show exactly that.

 

[Crimea_River]

.... And the Green can still be seen carrying its RAF color coating code....

Sure but factory stencils can be seen on many operational aircraft so this doesn't prove the airplane is new.

As to the pilot's outfit, it would be interesting to understand the circumstances behind this photo. It could be a ferry flight as you mentioned but, if that's the case, it doesn't necessarily mean the flight was from the factory; it could be from a MU as well.

It's certainly an interesting pic and a good study in finishes. I'd suggest that you change the topic header as you may attract more informative responses with something more indicative of the content.

 

[Brett G]

So, going with the wipe down theory, did the person just wipe down the one color? It really does look like two colors of a different sheen.
Very interesting photo, to be sure.

 

[Crimea_River]

It's a fair point that the sheen on the green stops at the grey. If the two paints were of the same lustre then we'd expect the sheen to be continuous since it's not reasonable the assume a guy with a rag followed the demarcation line. I think that the difference in lustre could be due to the method by which the grey paint was applied. It looks to me as though the grey was applied over the green and that the spray along the demarcation was applied at lower volume or slower speed than the green as one would do if we are free hand painting a line. Take a look below at this interesting photograph of Mosquito wings during production and take note of how the light hits the wing at the extreme left of the picture. You can clearly make out how the paint along the demarcation has a different lustre than the "fill-in" paint and I'd suggest that this is due to different spray techniques with the same paint. In this case it looks like the green was sprayed over the grey but in the Spitfire photo above, the grey may be painted over the green.

 

[Wurger]

it's not reasonable the assume a guy with a rag followed the demarcation line.

You are right Andy. It can be noticed while looking at the Ocean Grey camo spot there. There is a kind of discolouration for the paint. The area at the demarcation line is lighter than the entire rest of it. I have marked red the line between the two tones of the OG. It is running from the bottom to top and then going right. It is a kind of a wavy line. What is more , being more matt , the OG spot got the dirty deposit at the demarcation line. It is quite characteristic effect of wiping down of a rugged surface. Just some of the dirt is left at the grainy coat.
Also there are the traces of the discolouration for the Dark Green spot. It indicates that the colour wasn't just applied rather.
Additionally it can be noticed that the fading of colours was different for the DG and the OG. The DG coat was more resistant to that.

 

[stona]

Why look for a Zebra when there is a donkey in the field?

The suns is reflecting of the surface of the standard smooth finish of the period. It is clearly catching an area of Dark Green painted fuselage (and the canopy).

It does look like a publicity shot, so the aircraft may have been given a once over, the standard procedure used water, not petrol or any other solvent.

 

[Lucky13]

Regarding the comments about that bacon not being healthiest, most nutritious of all foods....ahum....cough....cough....how dare you!?

 

[Crimea_River]

Why look for a Zebra when there is a donkey in the field?

The suns is reflecting of the surface of the standard smooth finish of the period. It is clearly catching an area of Dark Green painted fuselage (and the canopy).

It does look like a publicity shot, so the aircraft may have been given a once over, the standard procedure used water, not petrol or any other solvent.

I was commenting on the clear fact that the reflection stops abruptly at the grey just under the windscreen and offered an explanation. It's the elephant in the room, to expand on your analogy.

 

[GrumpyOldCrewChief]

I was commenting on the clear fact that the reflection stops abruptly at the grey just under the windscreen and offered an explanation. It's the elephant in the room, to expand on your analogy

This difference in apparent sheen or luster is the "elephant" that I started the thread over! I was concerned over the obvious difference between the OG and the DG. Not why there was a slight reflection on the fuselage!

...how do I retitle a thread, anyway...

 

[Crimea_River]

This difference in apparent sheen or luster is the "elephant" that I started the thread over! I was concerned over the obvious difference between the OG and the DG. Not why there was a slight reflection on the fuselage!

...how do I retitle a thread, anyway...

Go to your original post at the extreme right and press the button shown below just over the #1. Then hit "Edit thread".

 

[GrumpyOldCrewChief]

There. Advice taken. Thank you.

 

[GrumpyOldCrewChief]

Sure but factory stencils can be seen on many operational aircraft so this doesn't prove the airplane is new.

I was pointing out the presence of the paint code, in close proximity to the area in question, as possible proof of the age and / or condition of the paint in question. Field repaints often did not bother with the restenciling, and there is little gradient across to the stencil itself from the forward area of the DG. There seems scarcely to have been enough time to collect all the "weathering and wear" smudges. As one example, the seat belts and buckles will wear a distinct and noticeable pattern on the finish, especially at the canopy rail. But there seems to be nearly none. The entire picture just shouts "NEW AIRFRAME", so the difference seems valid.

OT: Does anyone else remember Firesign Theatre?

 

[Wurger]

Here is the same shot but scanned with another device. Now the DG camo spot is of one tinge and the OG looks a little bit different.. However I'm still thinking the front area of the fuselage around the cockpit , was cleaned. But it is not brand new kite IMHO. So it seems Steve hit the nail.

the pic source: Alex Henshaw - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia

 

[stona]

And the reflection is off a surface that curves towards the horizontal. The reflection does carry on to the grey in front of the cockpit (where the 'deflection armour' looks to be, it's hard to be sure). It is just not so visible on the lower near vertical surfaces.