Jump to content

Battle of Britain Hurricane camouflage demarcation, hard or soft? 2 photos.


mpk

Recommended Posts

I am soon to begin painting my hurricane Mk.I. Before doing so, I'd like some input. 

I've been studying photo's on the web of BoB hurricanes. Some photo's appear to show camouflage as soft, and some hard. I'm unsure if the quality of the film is playing tricks with my eyes.

 

Here are 2 photo's I've found of my subject. Your thoughts appreciated as always.

 

Eq5mBh.jpg

 

Y1KE2e.jpg

Edited by mpk
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the factory, the edges would have been hard.  They were painted using heavy masks laid over the plane to obtain the required camouflage pattern, A or B.  B was the inverse of pattern A.  After that, what happened in the field is a case of using whatever repainting equipment was on hand.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dpgsbody55 said:

From the factory, the edges would have been hard.  They were painted using heavy masks laid over the plane to obtain the required camouflage pattern, A or B.  B was the inverse of pattern A.  After that, what happened in the field is a case of using whatever repainting equipment was on hand.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

Thanks, Michael. :)

1 hour ago, MikeMaben said:

They did use masks but they were mats (some say originally made of horsehair) but didn't

provide a 'sharp' demarcation (depending on what one's definition of sharp is).

 

Prewar ...

95U3Vun.jpg

he25VQ1.jpg

 

Early war ...

 

GXc72hL.jpg

bKgRQJt.jpg

 

sFRlxfu.jpg

 

HTH

 

 

Awesome.

Thanks mate! :)

 

36 minutes ago, fastterry said:

I reckon you still need to use Blu Tack worms to get the effect you are after, they allow just enough overspray.

TRF

 

And so I shall. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

couple of things

- i suggest getting this book if you want an excellent resource on early Hurricanes

- if going for a feathered edge, depends on how tight you can spray

- if considering scale, a feathered edge is unlikely to show up in 1/32 given limitations of one's ability to spray those tight lines

- feathered lines may still be aesthetically pleasing, even if not entirely accurate (I certainly find them so)

 

but definitely get the WingLeader Photo Archive book! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mozart said:

There is no definitive “correct” answer, the question has been debated by “experts” on many forums over the years. Go with whatever is your chosen method Dale, you won’t be wrong! 

I would go with Max on this one go with what you think looks right, below is a quote from Edgar.

 

Posted 18 December 2014 - 05:07 AM

This subject causes almost as much controversy as rivets. At the beginning of the war, aircraft camouflage colours were "blended," i.e. merged, but it was found that this was often done by lifting the gun away from the surface, so that paint was drying before it hit the surface, causing excess drag.
At a meeting, early in 1940, Farnborough, who were the Air Ministry's source for camouflage, said that blending was a waste of time, so the Ministry sent a circular to all Resident Technical Officers, saying that mats could, in future, be used. This covered the manufacturers, and POSSIBLY the Civilian Repair Organisation, but probably not M.U.s., and certainly not the Squadrons.
Mats probably caused ridges between colours, which needed smoothing down, but nothing like the roughness of the blending process, and a smooth finish was what the Ministry really wanted, but couldn't achieve with cellulose. Synthetic paint, in August 1942, was found to be smooth and matt, so was used until after the end of the war.
Understandably, modellers often think of their model first, and the real thing second, and this is where the fun starts. Ideally, blended colours had a "join" only one inch (even half an inch) wide, which, in photographs, looks very prominent, but, divide that down by 72 for a model, and it comes to 1/3rd of a mm, or 1/2 a mm in 1/48, 3/4 of a mm in 1/32, even 1/24 is only 1mm, and spraying to those limits is really difficult (I've never managed it.)
Ideally, taking all this into consideration, a model's finish should probably be hard-edged, but, as always, it's up to the individual, and long may that remain so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1 inch overspray requirement has been in pretty much all RAF aircraft finishing publications since they were first published (and still are today). As Max has stated with Edgar's quote, it is difficult to achieve, though Blu tack (or similar) does go a long way to providing a degree of minimal overspray if done carefully.

 

Good luck

 

Derek

 

 

 

 

Edited by Derek B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a photo of these fabled "mats" in use in British factories?  To my eye, the camouflage pattern is always a little different between aircraft, and the use of mats should see an almost perfect match.  Many photos show tight feathered edges, but noticeable variations in the pattern that indicates to me they were sprayed freehand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jenshb said:

Does anyone have a photo of these fabled "mats" in use in British factories?  To my eye, the camouflage pattern is always a little different between aircraft, and the use of mats should see an almost perfect match.  Many photos show tight feathered edges, but noticeable variations in the pattern that indicates to me they were sprayed freehand.

 

There was some quite heated discussions about camouflage mats a few years back so I'll skip that one. Though there is a photo of a P40 having it's camouflage painted using mats.

2tfQiz.jpg

The camouflage patterns did vary slightly from different factories though the overall scheme and colours were the same, I came across this when modelling a Spitfire once, I had made some paper masks for a previous build but when I checked photos of the new build the pattern was slightly different so I could not use them.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

Edited by dennismcc
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...