Camouflage painting

[stona]

"Were secondary duties aircraft in WW2 painted yellow underside and camo uppers? Was THAT a regulation?"

No. They were supposed to conform with the relevant regulations for their type, role and organisation.
Training aircraft were supposed to have yellow undersides and received the disruptive scheme on upper surfaces in 1938 along with everything else. Aircraft at OTUs were camouflaged as per whatever command they belonged to as were those of the Air Fighting Development Unit, Fighter Interception Unit and, while it existed, No. 2 School of Army Co-operation Command. .
Experimental and prototype aircraft, including private venture aircraft, were to have yellow undersides, though operational aircraft temporarily on the strength of experimental establishments were allowed to retain their 'normal colourings'.
Ambulance aircraft - white under surfaces.
Target towing aircraft - black inclined stripes on a yellow background. Black stripes 3 feet wide with a six foot yellow spacing.

The last one came with a helpful diagram:



In all cases the demarcation between upper and lower colours was determined by one of two 'patterns'. The detail is beyond the scope of this reply, but 'Pattern No. 1' was a low demarcation, 'Pattern No. 2' much higher. Which was to be used was specified in the instructions for each class of aircraft.

Aircraft were supposed to be finished in accordance with the relevant Air Ministry Orders. However, there was a war on, supplies of the relevant materiel, particularly to overseas commands for aircraft outside the metropolitan air force were inconsistent and the further away from London the less likely things were to be done on time, or even at all.

Malta is not that far away, but look at the can 'o' worms the colours on the Spitfires delivered there can be.

[Guest]

In about '38 the War Office began to issue the MTPs (MTP20?) about repainting vehicles from all-over bronze-green to a 'brown' and 'green' (not what they're actually called I know) disruptive scheme. The Army following what the RAF was doing? Unthinkable!

I don’t think they were following what the RAF was doing. Looking at the aircraft schemes, they seem intended to break up the aircraft’s outline and so make it harder to spot/hit. The British Army’s scheme was meant to even out the perceived colours on the vehicles, thereby making it stand out less as a whole — that’s why the top surfaces were painted dark, and there were dark blotches around the wheel arches but inside/below those arches was the lighter colour.

[Guest]

You know, I always assumed that camo was just a random pattern put onto aircraft, never realised there was a set pattern and lots were the same. Very interesting!

[Guest]

That applies to German AFVs from the Second World War, as well as a number of other nations/time periods, but a lot of camouflage has been designed specifically for a purpose and/or the vehicle/plane/ship it’s on. A layman won’t be able to tell the difference between those official patterns and something that comes from a modeller’s imagination, of course, but those who’ve researched it even a little, probably will.

[stona]

You know, I always assumed that camo was just a random pattern put onto aircraft, never realised there was a set pattern and lots were the same. Very interesting!

They were exactly specified. That's not to say there were not some small variations in the application between the various datum points.



US built aircraft were finished to British specifications, in agreed substitute colours.

[Guest]

They were exactly specified. That's not to say there were not some small variations in the application between the various datum points.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1220861[/ATTACH]

US built aircraft were finished to British specifications, in agreed substitute colours.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1220862[/ATTACH]

Thanks, that's really interesting.

[Scratchbuilder]

And to add even more confusion to the mix do not forget the father of camoflague - the Dazzle schemes used in WW1.... Used to hopefully off set the enemy when using you as a target....

[stona]

And to add even more confusion to the mix do not forget the father of camoflague - the Dazzle schemes used in WW1.... Used to hopefully off set the enemy when using you as a target....

They tried some of those on aircraft too!

The Americans were quite keen on it for a while. This 'Vindicator' sports one of the McClelland Barclay experimental schemes.



If you Google "McClelland Barclay camouflage" all sorts of his schemes will turn up on various aircraft. Fortunately for us these schemes were shown not really to work at all on aircraft.

[spanner570]

Steve, now that has my juices flowing good style!

[stona]

Go for it Ron!

Here's a shameless plug for the F2A in another exotic McClelland Barclay scheme.



As far as I know nobody is sure of the colours, though I've seen White, Black, Mid-Grey, Dark Grey, Sea Green, Blue and Silver Grey listed. I've never really researched these schemes, so have no idea about the combinations. I'm not sure anyone does!

[spanner570]

Steve, it seems to me the only limitation on design and the perhaps colours used, is what McClelland Barclay had in his/ her/ their heads and paint store at the time!

...and as a bonus, no one would dare write that something is not right with the modeller's choice.

Sorry Michael, I'm going off topic. Must stop.....

Ron

[Steve-the-Duck]

And to add even more confusion to the mix do not forget the father of camoflague - the Dazzle schemes used in WW1.... Used to hopefully off set the enemy when using you as a target....

Yes, unlike camouflage schemes meant to HIDE the vehicle, the dazzle schemes were meant confuse what it was being observed. There is a report from one RN sub captain, when dazzle was tested, that he could see the ship perfectly, but couldn't tell how far away it was or the direction it was going in through his periscope
Kind of vital when you're lining up a torpedo shot!

[stona]

the dazzle schemes were meant confuse what it was being observed.

There were some other 'deceptive' schemes applied to various aircraft, from a simple 'fake' perspex nose to hide the fact that the aircraft was a heavily armed version with a 'solid' nose to fake nacelles etc. How effective that was is anyone's guess. I'm sure I've seen a picture of a modern fighter jet with a fake canopy painted on the underside - but they're not my thing.

Poor old McClellan Barclay's camouflage was deemed ineffective on aircraft and never used operationally.

[Steve-the-Duck]

Here's a scan of the conjectural colour for one of the McClellan-Barclay schemes, out of Wings of the Fleet Profiles book from Aviation Workshop

I look at the complexity of the thing and go, 'what were they thinking'? Sure, it's experimental and all, but it's just so complicated. And what was the point of the lines on the underside? And don't get me started on those circles on the wings! I suppose the discovered pretty quickly that complex patterns like this blur together into one colour at a pretty short distance, which maybe why they went for 2/3 shade colouring pretty soon afterwards

Makes an interesting model project though, what with the OLD Airfix Buffalo being re-issued

Nope. I'm sticking to my spotty and smoky Italian schemes, thanks!

[Guest]

BTW, the reference shown in that scan is this page:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/ac-usn22/f-types/f2a-cam.htm

It has six views of the same plane, painted like this.