RAF Markings and Camouflage

[SuperFire]

This is getting sad. Go look at some google photos. So many variations. Some painting in the field. Squadron photos where no two are alike. It's really fun! The debate was over before it even began. Why do you persist man? It's fascinating.

Tell ya what! Everybody listen to buffnut, and paint it his way. Ignore the photos, just DO IT! Happy Pappy?

 

[buffnut453]

That is NOT what I'm saying. Why are you misrepresenting my comments?

 

[buffnut453]

And, for the record, all the aircraft in the photos you posted ARE alike. They're just not identical.

 

[SuperFire]

I told you that you were right to make you feel better! What do you want from me man? Jesus! LOL!

The paint jobs are not all alike, and some are way disparate, but you NEED to be right for some reason. You're right dude! Settle down! The photos are doctored ok? Be happy for Gods' sake! LMFAO!

 

[buffnut453]

For starters, I'd like you to recognize that a diagram is not a specification. Do you even understand the point I'm trying to make regarding specifications?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

My apologies to everyone here. I can only take so much...

 

[fubar57]

You lasted longer than I would have Alder. Keep up the good work

 

[Crimea_River]

Thank you Chris. It would be nice if we could flush the last 3 pages of garbage that was spewed out here.

 

[buffnut453]

Apologies all. I should have walked away the first time. Mea culpa.

 

[Crimea_River]

Me too.

 

[rochie]

wow !

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just so that others are aware that missed the whole conversation. He was not banned for his stance on the camo paint. There were other things that were said that went beyond what is reasonable to work with. Those posts (including mine in response to him) have been removed from public view, as they should be.

 

[fubar57]

Roger...copy that...over....CLEAR!!!!! (some idiot in the mine actually says that)

 

[Crimea_River]

That was the capper. The guy was being a dick on the camo stuff too as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Airframes]

He seemed to be provocative and challenging in every post he made, in every thread, not just this one. Either he truly has an ego problem, along with arrogance, or he was deliberately bating people.

 

[Crimea_River]

Definitely an element of the latter was there. The Humbrol thread was the first sign that I saw.

 

[nuuumannn]

Just read through this thread. Wow; I'm surprised it went on for as long as it did! What a douche.

 

[TonyT]

Some comments:

1. Your statement about gate guards not being painted until the 1980s is patently untrue. Many gate guards weren't even wearing wartime camouflage but postwar high-speed silver or some other postwar affectation of wartime camo. Here are just a couple of examples:

View attachment 484142
RAF Wilmslow had a retired Supermarine Spitfire as a 'Gate Guardian'. It was a Spitfire Mk Vb; serial 5377M aka EP120. RAF Wilmslow closed in 1962...so no 1980s repaint in this case.

View attachment 484143
RAF Northolt gate guardian - photo taken in 1970. You're telling me this hasn't been repainted since WW2???


2. A diagram is NOT a template nor is it a specification. It is a general plan. In order for a plan to be a template, it should be constructed at full scale and distributed so it can be used as a mask. In order for a plan to be a specification, it should include details of approved tolerances in areas where such things were important. For example, a plan might show a 1/4in diameter bolt that's 1in long. The SPECIFICATION should articulate the allowable tolerances. If the spec calls for length tolerances of +/- 1/8in, then we could place 2 bolts side-by-side and find that the first is 1-1/8in and the other is 15/16in but BOTH of them meet the SPECIFICATION. Now apply that to RAF camouflage. What is the SPECIFICATION for how closely the applied scheme should match the plan? Short answer....THERE ISN'T ONE. About the only spec cited was the degree of feathering between the camouflage colours (no more than 1in). There's NO wording ANYWHERE that I've seen which states that the applied scheme must be within so-and-so inches of the diagram. You keep stating that the photos "prove" that the aircraft were painted "out of spec" but you CANNOT make that assertion without providing the spec...and all its associated tolerances. For the third time of asking, PLEASE provide the spec and I'll start listening to you.

3. Nobody is saying that the plan was followed slavishly. That said, neither is it a "wide playground". The photos show some slight differences in the positioning of the demarcation lines but it's only really visible when aircraft are seen side-by-side. In terms of impacting the overall camouflage scheme, there's zero appreciable wholesale difference. Where I will agree is that we should always strive to consult photos of the actual aircraft in the timeframe we wish to model in order to correctly capture the look of the aircraft, to include any unique markings (eg noseart) or distinctive weathering patterns.


The above is offered in a final attempt to explain my position. I'm done with the propagation of false information and the attempt to somehow link it to jingoistic perceptions about British Commonwealth personnel in general or their officers in particular. I look forward to any substantive comments you may have.

Spitfires were painted with horsehair mats precut to the scheme and simply draped over the airframe as the camo was applied. similar too

I also have the original factory drawing, though they did do several during the war, see link below, IT IS A FACTORY DRAWING, NO DIFFERENT TO A DRAWING FOR A WING RIB AND THE DIMENSIONS APPENDED ON IT ARE THE DIMENSIONS YOU USE, there is no tolerences required for them, as unlike a rib, slight deviation will not effect anything.

"What is the SPECIFICATION for how closely the applied scheme should match the plan? Short answer....THERE ISN'T ONE."

ERR there is and I have just provided it.

 

[N4521U]

Spitfires were painted with horsehair mats precut to the scheme and simply draped over the airframe as the camo was applied. similar too

View attachment 512904

I also have the original factory drawing, though they did do several during the war, see link below, IT IS A FACTORY DRAWING, NO DIFFERENT TO A DRAWING FOR A WING RIB AND THE DIMENSIONS APPENDED ON IT ARE THE DIMENSIONS YOU USE, there is no tolerences required for them, as unlike a rib, slight deviation will not effect anything.

View attachment 512903


"What is the SPECIFICATION for how closely the applied scheme should match the plan? Short answer....THERE ISN'T ONE."

ERR there is and I have just provided it.

So I am looking for the cammo pattern for the Mk.XIV=C/D............
Is it the same as the above?
And did the Mk.XIV also have an A&B scheme?
Bill

 

[Wurger]

As memo serves yes that"s the camo layout. However it can be noticed in pics that there were minior differences in the shape of camo spots. Especially at the nose and rudder. See the B&W pic below. Also the camo can be considered as the A type although the dividing on the A and B and using of the B were given up much earlier. So, it seems it was the only one used for the Mk.XIV.