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

This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

It seems we are not looking at the same picture.

'Mr. Spitfire'  Alex Henshaw_.jpg
I it's not reasonable the assume a guy with a rag followed the demarcation line.

So I'm asking .. why not? Actually it is less of work for him than wiping down the entire area from the top to the wing root and forward.
However if the area was cleaned off with water as Stave said, it is possible the part of fuselage could be treated with the paraffin as Terry has mentioned. It could have been because of giving a protection coat or just better appearance. And again it would be less of work for the guy if he applied that and then polished with a dry rag for the DG spot only.
I'm saying that there is clear evidence of different lustres at paint demarcation lines per the picture of the Mosquito wing I posted and that this could explain why there would be a distinct loss of shine between the green and grey. I don't see it as reasonable that a guy with a rag would only wipe down the green and not the grey, taking care to follow the demarcation exactly whilst doing so! The simplest answer is usually the right one.
I understand you Andy. And I agree. But for me it looks like the DG spot was waxed only. A similar effect I saw many times when I was servicing in my FB Regiment.
Anyway I wouldn't say everything we knew about WWII RAF camoflage has been wrong so far.
I was not seriously suggesting that we had been in error all these years. I was attempting to humorously bring some attention to a point I found that was seemingly at odds to the current conventional wisdom. The humour being supplied by a reference to an obscure skit by a comedy troupe no one seems to remember...
It seems we are not looking at the same picture.

View attachment 567637

The area around the cockpit, to me, looks like a combination of "coverall polishing", window cleaning polish and general wipedowns. Why it doesn't extend onto the grey? First likely reason is that is the general area where the bulk of the wiping ended and the second is that matte demarcation is green overspray which is quite rough, not a relatively smooth layer of matte paint and this effect might make the gloss transition appear to be more abrupt than it should be. There is a slight gloss in the grey at the cowling aft edge but it doesn't appear to be at the same reflective angle. Also, it's not at all unusual to have glossy areas on matte paint around routine service areas especially where oil and grease are used.

Overspray can be so course you can wax the crap out of it and it won't shine - I've tried :sob:.

(Disclosure: I've been flying and working on airplanes since 1974 :pilotsalute:)
Yes, I am very familiar with the effects of wear and cleanup efforts on paint, too. I was a crew chief on B-52Gs, starting before the fall of the Soviet Union. This picture did not seem to fall within any of the "reasonable" explanations offered up so far. Spilled oil? Seen it. Spilled fuel? Seen it. Wear and finish changes from wear? Seen that, too. None seem to quite match that damnable difference between the DG and the OG visible in this photo...

Users who are viewing this thread