"Real" colours for Hurri Mk1 (BOB)?

[Guest]

Yea, that is the one I am doing - LKA

I had some hassles with the Humbrol primer yesterday. It plainly didn't dry at all, so out came the Turps and 1000 sandpaper.

I shot on the Sky (#90) and it is truely an odd colour, but as you lads say - it worked.

This has dried and I will start on the earth(#29) and the green (#116) later.

I didn't do to much to the cockpit as the closed canopy will hide almost all detail ,or lack thereof.

The wheelwells were blocked off with card, but it is very un-neat. Still a tad better than the hole that Airfix left.

I am happy with the re-scribing effort. It is not by any means the best I have done, but again way better than the raird detail. I did however leave the raised detail on the fuselarge as re-doing that might be tricky.

Would the final level of shine be a satin or a fully matt???

Thanx

Theuns

PS. Mods if this thread is better suited in the "under construction" will you please move it?

[ATTACH]41422.IPB[/ATTACH]

[Guest]

Would the final level of shine be a satin or a fully matt?

Specification was always matt, even when, in 1942, they started to use "smooth" paints, it was always "Smooth, with a matt finish." If you think that it's a contradiction in terms, imagine the headaches for paint manufacturers.

The whole idea was to stop any reflections giving away the aircraft's position, when on the ground. This was the reason for prop blades being painted black, and canopies were supposed to be covered, as well.

Edgar

[Guest]

i have a number of hurricane parts in my museum still with some colour, the brown & green were never the same. most factory applyed but some squadron. underside 90% of the time, duckegg blue. i have a large part of wing underside showing light (sky) blue, Pre France, also black from France and duckegg blue from the battle where it was shot down.

There is no 100% right and wrong.

bob

[stona]

As Edgar says,matt on British aircraft. I have to say there are plenty of images in which the regulation "smooth,matt" finish has a slight sheen to it,maybe after a good wash and rub down.

Cheers

Steve

[stona]

There is no 100% right and wrong.

bob

That's true but from 6/6/40 undersides of RAF aircraft were to be painted Sky. We know this didn't happen overnight and that there were issues with supply of the new colour and even confusion over what exactly it was supposed to be (evidenced in signals attempting to clarify the issue). Nonetheless at some time after the order to paint Sky undersides most fighters would have had exactly that. This was the Royal Air Force,orders are orders,not options. Sky,like the other camouflage colours was carefully defined and stipulated and too wide a variation from the norm would not have been acceptable.

These colours weathered in service. What they look like on seventy year old relics is dependent on far too many factors to list here but they may vary considerably from the original paint.

Duck egg blue was used to describe the colour Sky quite inaccurately. Duck egg blueish green was deemed more acceptable,pale blue-green (as in the letter above) is more accurate still. I wouldn't describe Sky as a light blue,like say the Luftwaffe's RLM 65,but everyone's eyes and perceptions are different.

I believe Edgar,who has contributed above,has a theory that the "duck egg" part of the description may refer to the smooth finish rather that any similarity to the various colours of duck eggs per se. We must remember that people seventy years ago may have used language differently to how we use it today.

It's also important to seperate an effort to discover what was on the original aircraft from what we put on our models. I certainly don't beat myself up making exact matches! If it looks okay to you on your model then that's as good as it gets.

Cheers

Steve

[Guest]

If I study the pix of above, they seem to have a very slight satin sheen to it, the Spit in particular on the rear fuse. I recon a total matt plane would look a bit "wrong"

Maybe a 50/50 mix of matt and satin will do.

Theuns

[stona]

Well you can go from a recently cleaned and probably a bit damp (judging by the weather) look like this

To a more flat and in this case literally second hand look like this

The paint itself was matt.

Cheers

Steve

[Guest]

It seems the maintenance standards of the RAF were slightly higher than their Russian counterparts!

Or did you lads give them the old washed up planes then and keep all the new ones for yourself hey? LOL

Theuns

[stona]

I don't think it is too big a generalisation to say that RAF aircraft were well cared for. You may see worn or well used aircraft but very rarely a dirty one. Even photographs taken in what must have been difficult theatres in which to maintain the air frames support this.

Cheers

Steve.

[Guest]

In August, 1942, Supermarine found a synthetic paint, which could give the required smoothness, with a matt finish.

As well as the new paint, it was agreed that the entire front 25% of the wing would have its rivet "divots" filled, together with all of its panel lines, smoothed down, then primed and painted.

Around 1941, a new trade, the Aircraft Finisher, was introduced, whose duty was to look after the paint surface. One no-no was the use of wax polish (not that some pilots took any notice,) since it made any touching-up, or repainting, extremely difficult.

The standard treatment for the paint was a rub-down with wet sandpaper, then a wash-down with clean water; any "expert," who says that they were in a glossy finish, needs a quick course in history. Once the authorities had found that the paint worked, Hawker and Bristol soon followed suit.

Russia got brand-new IXs, which had become surplus to requirements, due to the ready availability of the VIII, XIV & XVI; the fact that they didn't look after them should come as no surprise, since, when Rolls-Royce went to check up on how their engines were behaving, they found that they'd been tipped out, into the mud, and the Russians were living in the wooden crates.

Edgar

[mossiepilot]

Hey Edgar, have you got any pictures of the boxes/huts.

Sounds like a potential dio here - LOL

Tony.

[Guest]

I sprayed on a coat of HU 29 this morning and the paint must have been old as it dried in a specled tone and texture.

SO for the second time now I had to paintstrip it all off , sand smooth and re-scribing will be my "fun" passtime this weekend!

Theuns

[Guest]

Another reference photo. I took this a few years back at Dunsfold. Technically not brilliant, but useful for reference.

[Guest]

Thanx, it does actually help to see the correct placement of the dope paches over the guns.

Theuns

[Guest]

Allright that's it! I have put the bloddy Huricane model away for now. After re-scribing for the 3 rd time and being unsuccessfull I have re-boxed the thing till I can figure out a way of making it work. Maybe by painting ans sanding it till the lines are gone it will work, then I can after painting just draw the lines on with a pencil.

This exersize has now TOTALLY cured me from any major re-scribing till I get a better way of doing so.

Hopefully the Airfix BF 110 will go better!

Theuns