It’s not often that I built WWII subjectmatter, but I’ve decided to give the H’gawa 1/48th Hurricane a shot (been in the stash for a couple of years).
I seem to recall that RAF birds had hard-edged patterns. Is this correct?
Thanks
Ray
Yes RAF camo, particulary that which would be found on Hurricanes and Spitfire, wasgenerally hard-edged. If you look at enough photos, you can find some that apparently show a soft edge, but mostly the edegs are sharp.
Andy
They were painted using canvass or rubber masks & left the factory with a basically sharp edge. Pics can be found showing soft edges on aircraft repaired & repainted in the field.
Regards, Rick
Thought so. Thanks Andy!
Ray
Thanks Rick. I never realized that they used masks in the factory, but it certainly makes sense.
Ray
Better yet, There were 2 types of schemes. A type ‘A’ and a type ‘B’. If I recall correctly
they were the reverse colors of each other and Identified an odd and even numbered AC.
I think type ‘A’ camo was for odd numbered AC and type ‘B’ for even.
I love this debate, it is something that has been argued about for years. My take on this is that the painters in the factories would use the easiest method possible. This makes sense because the easiest will be the quickest. I Work with a guy who used to paint aircraft at the then RAF Finningly and we discussed this over some time. He and I know something about handling a spray gun, as well as an airbrush.
There are pictures showing aircraft with what appear to be rubber mats on the wings (not RAF) and these have been interpreted as being for the purpose of painting. Just think about this, as someone who has to spray paint an aircraft wing and think about the size and weight of a mask of this size. Think about the time taken to position it. Also remember these painters were likely to be women (I have a pic somewhere). Now at the moment you are probably thinking Spitfire or Hurricane? Now think of the difficulties of using these masks on heavy bombers.
I believe the method was to spray free hand. Think about it, the supervisor would chalk the pattern onto the airframe, (which had previously been painted in primer). One painter would spray an outline of the camo, say Dark Earth and a second would fill in. when the first is finished they would switch to Dark Green and spray along the demarcation. Done properly this would give a nice tight prayed demarcation, when the second painter has finished the Dark earth he starts to fill in the Dark Green and the first painter helps when he has finished painting the demarcation. This system can be adopted for use for many more painters doing a fast moving production line.
It is of course only theory, because as yet I and I believe Know one has any real proof as to the real methods employed. What I do know is that this method works on models, because that’s how I now do it. I’ve also tried masks and they are a pain. So the choice is really up to you, just keep your head down for the flak from those that “know” [:)]
An example of my freehand airbrushing:
Please remember I do not know any of this in fact, it just all seems to make more sense that it was done this way, or simmilar, to me[:)]
Mal
Edit: Sorry should have said that if you are new to airbrushing or don’t feel confident in doing this freehand then use masks. I have tried White/Blue Tack for this and it works well, I have pics if you are interested?
Sorry Holdfast, but qualified researchers don’t agree with your guesses. The most comprehensive book on the subject that I have seen is " Camouflage & Markings of the RAF Fighter Command 1936 to 1945 " by James Goulding & Robert Jones, published by Doubleday in England, copyright 1970. These researchers had access to the actual factory drawings & production logs as well as extensive interviews with the factory supervisors & workers of the war years at all of the British aircraft factories, with special emphasis on the Hawker & Spitfire works. In the book they describe in some detail the use of canvass masks & rubber mats for applying the disruptive camo schemes. The book includes a wealth of other information that can be very valuable to the serious modeler. Also, for US Companies building Aircraft for the RAF, specific detailed drawings of the camo patterns were provided & the Aircraft were masked in much the same manner. It’s very well documented that Curtiss, for example, masked all of the P-40’s intended for the RAF, many of which ended up with the AVG. How you do your models is of no concern to me, but belittling those who have actually invested the time & effort to try & learn the facts, is.
Regards, Rick
The use of the A or B pattern was in theory supposed to correspond to the serial number being odd or even, but in practice, well, it just didn’t work out that way.
Al
Yes masks were used - and I agree tge book mentioned above is invaluable. However regardless of whether it was a hard or soft edge do remember that at the reduced scale and corresponding viewing distance a “hard edge” would be seen. I have a picture of the Hurricane in the Science Museum in London - which is in its original state -i.e. not restored- and the edges are relatively hard - viewed from 12 " !!
[:)]Cheers Rick, that’ll do for me. Do you have a spare copy of this book that you don’t want[:D] I will still paint my RAF Camo freehand though.
Then I re-read your post?
I wasn’t belittling anyone, I was simply stating my take on this. I don’t have the book you refer to niether have I heard of it. I just know that this is a debate that crops up time and a gain. I have actually tried to learn the facts but have never found anything about this on the web. I don’t have lots of cash to buy books. I model for pleasure. As you can see from the start of my initial reply I am more than willing to learn from those that know (I have not re-wrote or changed this at all)
Did you read all of my post?
Thank you and good bye
Mal
Isn’t the real question here whether they were painted with a hard edge or soft. I think the answer is yes, because both were represented on RAF aircraft and I believe either could be considered accurate. I personnally free hand all my RAF aircraft and pretty much only build RAF aircraft. I like the look so that’s what I personnally prefer. I’ve attached some pictures from www.ww2incolor.com that clearly show a well defined yet soft edge between upper surface colors on RAF aircraft, granted these could be field applied and not factory as there are also picture showing what appears to be a very hard line between colors. I was looking for my photo’s of the Spritfire Mk1 hanging in the Imperial war museum in London but can’t find them right now. This is a completely unrestored had retains the paint that it had when struck off charge during the war. I swear that it has soft but well defined edge. I truely beleive the decision is up to the modeler as both could be considered accurate.
Sorry, I had a typo on my image postings, here are the images
I can’t believe I’m getting into this debate! I was at the Imperial War Museum (London) last year and stood, rapt, looking at the Spitfire Mk 1, reputed to be the only existing Spitfire that fought in the Battle of Britain (602 “Glasgow” Squadron). I don’t know if the paint is original - if so, it is in pretty good shape. It is certainly not the paint it was wearing during the Battle of Britain because it is in the Ocean Grey/Dark Green temperate land day fighter scheme that came in in 1941, rather than the 1940 Dark Earth/Dark green scheme in use before that time. However, I can say with certainty that it has a well-defined but soft demarcation between the camouflage colours.