Jump to content

RAF WW2 camouflage. Hard edge or soft edge?


Recommended Posts

sorry Ron, it was meant to be funny but doesn't read that way on reflection :doh:

 

i was musing what if we had to write stuff out long hand the old school way - what a pain the backside that would be!

 

anyway, thank you for the history of that airframe 

Edited by nmayhew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This aircraft’s operational history is particularly poignant for me since so much of it took place in the skies above the place that I’ve called home for most of my life, the south coast of Dorset. Warmwell is a tiny village with a fighter airfield adjacent, which was just 15 minutes away from my house. The village’s churchyard has a dozen or so beautifully-tended graves from wartime RAF fatalities. Sadly no trace remains now of the airfield, gravel extraction has claimed it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

That’s not a factory paint job though.  No Mk.I or II left the factory in the 1942 colors.  The real question is about factory applied schemes.

 

Not entirely, although it may have morphed into that question.  Here's the first post.

 

On 9/12/2019 at 3:22 PM, TimHepplestone said:

Recently in several model magazines I’m seeing more builds where paper or tape masks , applied flush to the model, have even used to create hard edged demarcations on RAF camouflage subjects. My preference is always to create a softer edged appearance either by using a mask slightly lifted off the surface or by freehand spraying. Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be more historically accurate though? My reference photos seem to show a slightly soft edge although interpreting old period photos can be difficult 

 

Thanks in advance

 

Tim

Notwithstanding that this Spit was repainted, it is "historically accurate" since it was repainted during the war.  When I took these pics there was a sign describing the info above, but also that the paint job was "in original livery from the war".  I've got lots of Spitfire books like Bracken's, "Spitfire, The Canadians" and most of the wartime photos show the camo pattern to be feathered rather than hard edged, much like my pics above.  Was this factory?  Who cares, as long as it's "accurate".

 

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Out2gtcha said:

What are the chine strip thingies on the outside of the wing blisters? 

Bit more info on the stiffeners

 

Spitfire external wing stiffeners

 

Mod 532 "To stiffen wing near wheel well" went into production 14-8-42, on the Ia, IIa, Va, IIb & Vb, and was made retrospective, but "on repair only." This caused at least one anomaly, where AR213, until its recent rebuild, had one stiffened, and one non-stiffened, wing.
There was another stiffening mod, 455, but that was cancelled by 532 (and 529, for the Vc.) So far, I haven't been able to find out what 455 entailed, probably because 529 & 532 cancelled it, so all drawings were scrapped; it's somewhat academic, anyway, since it, too, didn't happen until 19-11-41, so no 1940 airframe should have any form of visible wing stiffening (there was another one, inside the l/e "D" box, but that doesn't count, unless you're building a skeleton, and another, for thicker gauge metal, at the rear of a couple of wing ribs.)
For the record, stiffened wings still retained the "other" stiffeners/bracing inside the wheel wells on the "A" & "B" wings, while the "C" had completely new internal bracing.
Edgar

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, nmayhew said:

And yet if we go back to the ‘Old Testament’ ie the word according to Edgar, he was adamant that mats were used...

 

Yes he was, and I know I've seen pictures of their use but can't find them anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20 September 2019 at 8:30 PM, Jennings Heilig said:

Has anyone, now or ever, thought that *outside* of the factory, the RAF used painting mats?  There's even less evidence of that than there is for their use *inside* factories, which is to say, there is zero.

 

On 20 September 2019 at 10:33 PM, nmayhew said:

And yet if we go back to the ‘Old Testament’ ie the word according to Edgar, he was adamant that mats were used...

 

On 20 September 2019 at 11:32 PM, LSP_Ron said:

 

Yes he was, and I know I've seen pictures of their use but can't find them anywhere.

 

I remember seeing those pictures on Mossie production at Hatfield or Leavesden.

 

Tony 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2019 at 9:01 AM, Jennings Heilig said:

 

Look again

Slight differences, yes.  But that can be accounted for irregular application of the masks.  Each would have to be located on the aircraft every time.  And irregularities in applying the paint relative to the mask too.  

 

A photograph of a mask on a Spitfire is much more compelling evidence (assuming that exists) than a bunch of near-identical camouflage patterns and pointing out very small discrepancies among them.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TAG said:

Here's a fascinating video that was posted in an old Hyperscale thread about the exact same subject we're discussing here. It's an official RAF training film for painting camouflage on a 303 Squadron Spit, definitely worth a gander!

 

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F02334/

 

 

Indeed! Look from minute 24 to see camo and roundel painting. Free hand job but this is clearly a repair workshop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...