Camouflage painting

[Digger]

Hi, just getting back in to this hobby. Doing the airfix starter set hurricane and Spitfire, just wondering does it matter if I do not get the exact matching if the areas as long as it looks about right.

[Waspie]

Welcome Michael. As long as you're happy with the colours it's all that matters. Hopefully one of the more experienced builders will along soon to comment. (I'm a relative newcomer to modelling!!)

[Bri62]

Welcome, enjoy your stay

[spanner570]

Welcome Michael.

The colours in the 'Starter Sets' are a good match. I brush paint and the little tubs of paint are excellent, giving results that I'm happy with.

Re. the camouflage shapes. I just get them near enough by marking them out with a pencil. then filling in.
I don't worry if they are not dead on. There again I'm a born and bred 'Near enough' merchant, so perhaps best to ignore my post........

It's your model. so set your own standards. As long as you are happy with the result, that is all that matters......

Ron

[Guest]

As the others said above: the thing to aim for is a finish you’re happy with — or at least, can live with, should you be unable to get one you’re actually happy with

It seems you’re actually asking about whether the camouflage schemes for British aircraft were to an exact pattern, or just approximate guidelines. As the war progressed, many of these planes were sprayed at the factory using templates made by cutting rubber mats to the shapes of the patterns, so they were essentially all the exact same. For painting a model, I find it helps to draw the pattern onto the model with a pencil before painting — this way, you can erase and redraw mistakes before you make them permanent with paint

[Airborne01]

Good Luck with that mate, I'm sure you'll nail it!
Steve

[Jim R]

It's your model Michael. As others have said so long as you're happy with the result and have enjoyed making the model then that's all that matters.
Welcome to the forum.

[Scratchbuilder]

When the full size aircraft were painted there was a set drawing for the application of the paint, but not to full size, possibly A3 or A1 and from there, this was drawn onto the airframe in chalk and the painters then went to work. So if you want 100% accuracy the you need to get hold of the original drawings. Otherwise if you are near enough to the original, then you are 100% correct. Like the camoflague patterns for AFV's there was an original paint scheme applied at the factory, and then after that it was left up to the squaddies, once the vehicle was in service, and once they got their grubby little hands on the paint and what passed for a brush.....

[Mr Bowcat]

Your model, your choice.

As a kid, I made a winter camo Spit using Tippex. :tears-of-joy:

[Guest]

Like the camoflague patterns for AFV's there was an original paint scheme applied at the factory, and then after that it was left up to the squaddies, once the vehicle was in service, and once they got their grubby little hands on the paint and what passed for a brush.....

Beware that this isn’t necessarily true for all times and places, though. US Army instructions for three-colour NATO camouflage are rather strict, for example, to the extent that distances from fixed points on the vehicle are specified for various parts of the camouflage, with a tolerance of 1.00 inch (the two decimal places are in the manual), plus:

Inspections will only be measured at reference points and will evaluate the overall effect at 50 feet. In addition, overspray which can be discerned at 50 feet will be considered sloppy painting and will be corrected.

Yet the manual for the MERDC camouflage that came before NATO camouflage has none of this kind of language, and patterns on actual vehicles deviated a lot from the official drawings — to the extent that sometimes you can only tell a vehicle has been painted in MERDC by the colours and basic pattern shapes used.

In other words, if your goal is an accurately painted model, you may have to do some research into real-world painting practices for the equipment and army/air force/whatever, as well as how much deviation is tolerated IRL.

[Steve-the-Duck]

If I recall correctly, the Airfix plan sheets are pretty good on the shape and layout of RAF camo. And Dark Earth and Dark Green are pretty standard. There's a lot of conjecture / nonsense talked about RAF schemes, 'A' and 'B' patterns, left- and right-handedness, often with the 'resort to authority' fallacy. There're a couple of pictures of Fairey Battle squadrons in 1940 where no two planes match in colours or roundel type, but the actual PATTERNS are almost identical.

But as everyone else said, it's whether and what the result you want is, and how it matters to YOU that's important. And DO take our word for THAT

[Digger]

Hi

Thanks for all your comments, in the end i cheated and got some masks from top notch. Turned out OK I think.

[Ian M]

There's a lot of conjecture / nonsense talked about RAF schemes, 'A' and 'B' patterns, left- and right-handedness, often with the 'resort to authority' fallacy.

Anyone seen stona ? He has this info planted in his head. What he don't know about RAF camouflage is not worth knowing.
I heard once that it was due to the rubber mats curling up at the edge, so to negate that, they where put on the other side, face down to flatten the edge. as to the truth I have no idea but I am sure Steve knows.

[wasdale32]

Also remember that a 1:1 original pattern will never translate exactly to a 1:72 reproduction - it will always be a compromise as the tolerances to match the 1:1 version are simply not possible in such a small scale.

[stona]

I heard my name!

So, 'A' and 'B' schemes. These were laid out in camouflage scheme drawings prepared in June 1936, in Air Diagrams for all the main types of aircraft. For example A.D. 1158 was for 'Single Engine Monoplanes' and 'Medium Bombers'.

All these drawings illustrated TWO disruptive patterns to be applied to the upper surfaces which were from the outset described as the 'A Scheme' and 'B Scheme'.

The intention was that these would be mirror images of one another. This could be achieved by simply marking the relevant areas appropriately or, when masking mats were used, simply turning them over and swopping sides. It was also intended that the schemes should be applied to alternate aircraft on the production line, though this is more problematic, as is any easy rule regarding odd and even serials. Generally even serialed Spitfires carried the 'A' pattern and odd the 'B' this was reversed for Hurricanes. There are exceptions in both cases.

Here is an image of six Spitfires, the three in the foreground in the 'A Scheme', the three in the background in the 'B Scheme'. This is an early photo, going by the wireless masts, canopies, markings and lack of fin flashes, which were initially applied at a French request to British aircraft operating there. Initially they were applied to the rudder, but a very terse Directorate of Operational Requirements Minute dated 16 April 1940 put a stop to that and henceforth they went on the fin.*



There was no order to adopt the A pattern. In January 1941 manufacturers were told to stick to one scheme as a production expedient. Whether by accident or design most chose the A pattern.

There is some evidence that the original intention was for four schemes. A and B as was historically the case, and two others in which the colours were to be transposed. Thankfully that didn't happen!

As to the original question, the schemes were quite strictly defined, the drawings are accurate to an inch, but there were inevitably small variations. You will find pictures of aircraft lined up in our outside the factories that show this. How exact you want to be is entirely up to you. It's your model, if you're happy with it, that's all that matters.

*"The complication of adopting striping on rudders by some Air Component fighter units cannot be further tolerated, and this marking must be applied to the fin."