Duck egg green .. or..

Except for the fact that the original Boeing production drawings quote “Deep Sky Blue” – see the website below for the drawings and the picture on that website is surely a factory shot .

http://amair4raf.blogspot.com/

The drawing is of a B-17E and shows how they would have looked had the RAF actually received any. They were retained by the USA and up to 40 were used in training and combat in what appears to be a British style camouflage. Eventually Britain received 19 B-17Fs under lend lease which went to Coastal Command. They did not use this scheme which was meant for a high altitude day bomber.

The drawing has no relevance to the 20 B-17Cs received by Britain, almost all of which served with 90 Squadron. They were delivered in USAAC camouflage of Olive Drab over Neutral Gray with British national markings. The camouflage was a temporary, distemper type paint. They were repainted, initially Dark Green, Dark Earth over Sky. Paul Lucas, in his article, describes the changes that look place and how that led to the scheme shown on the drawing.

The colour deep sky blue on the drawing is not Deep Sky. The drawing is dated July 1941. The name Deep Sky was not adopted until October 1941.

The aircraft in the photograph is not painted with Deep Sky or a similar colour. The colour is similar to PRU Blue. Deep Sky was darker and bluer than PRU Blue and was developed because of a requirement for a darker blue than PRU Blue.

What Paul Lucas has to say on the drawing and the photograph

There is more information available about the green, brown and blue scheme to Pattern No 2 as applied to the B-17E, as the Boeing drawing for this scheme which was entitled, ‘Diagram Camouflage and Insignia (British)’, originally dated 2 July 1941, has survived. The information contained in this document raises as many questions as it answers however.

It shows a B-17E camouflaged on the upper surfaces with dark green Fullers TL 8714 and dark earth Fullers TL 8713, to the ‘A’ Scheme from Air Diagram 1161, with deep sky blue Fullers TL 8997 on the under surfaces to Pattern No 2. …….

The first question this drawing raises concerns the colours listed on the diagram, because there is a very well known colour photograph of B-17E 41-9141 which is camouflaged in the scheme shown in the drawing, flying in close formation’ with 41-9131 which is camouflaged in the USAAF scheme. The first thing which strikes you as you look at this photo is that the shade of green on the upper surfaces of both aircraft appears to be identical. This should imply that dark green Fullers TL 8714 was Bulletin 41 Dark Olive Drab. The problem with this is that the drawing lists two Bulletin 41 colours as identification colours and if the green was Bulletin 41 Dark Olive Drab 41, why does the drawing colour key not say so?

The ‘sting’ in this question concerns 41-9131 in the USAAF camouflage scheme. If the same
green paint was used on both aircraft, and it is not Dark Olive Drab 41, then 41-9131 is not camouflaged in Dark Olive Drab 41, but a US produced equivalent to Dark Green. Lest anyone jump to the obvious question as to whether it might have been Medium Green 42, the same logic applies, why does the drawing colour key not say so?

For the time being at least, it must be assumed that the colour was indeed Dark Olive
Drab 41, as this would appear to be the most likely colour given that Dark Olive Drab 41 was ultimately accepted by Britain where Dark Green was called for in the camouflage of US-built aircraft from March 1942.

The second question concerns the brown shade on the upper surfaces. The colour photograph appears to show this colour as being a light tone, quite unlike the RAF shade of Dark Earth. It is thought that various US aircraft manufacturers used at least two or three shades of brown as equivalents for Dark Earth, one being a very close match to the British colour, one being not dissimilar to Rust Brown 34, whilst the other has been likened to FS 30279, the tan colour introduced by the USAF during the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, the colour apparent in the photograph of 41-9141 appears to be lighter and more yellow than any of these, being perhaps somewhere near FS 33440.

The third question concerns the shade of blue paint on the under surfaces. According to the drawing, this is ‘deep sky blue’, but no such colour ever existed in RAF nomenclature and this name would appear to be a colloquial term. The drawing is dated July 1941, but the name Deep Sky was not coined in Britain until October 1941 and the hue apparent in the photograph does not appear to be either dark or blue enough to be Deep Sky, whilst it is too dark to be Sky Blue which was used on the B-17Cs.

It would therefore appear that ‘deep sky blue’ is a corruption of the term ‘special sky blue’ which was the term used by Bomber Command to describe the colour ‘Cosmic’ blue which was later named PRU Blue, perhaps overlaid with the colour Bomber Command wished to adopt for its Fortresses from October 1941, Deep Sky? The blue colour visible in the photograph seems to be very similar to Cosmic/PRU Blue.

The problem with this is that as far as is known, PRU Blue was never manufactured in the US which went its own way with the camouflage of PR aircraft with the development of Haze paint. There is one interesting possibility in that there was a US colour which was not dissimilar to PRU Blue in some respects, Dark Blue 29 which is slightly darker and perhaps more green than PRU Blue.

After it was suggested to him that the colour was similar to that used by the US Navy called Blue Gray.

Paul Lucas replies
It is always gratifying to receive this sort of readers’ letter, as it not only shows that someone has actually read the relevant article, but also feels that they have something to contribute which adds to our collective knowledge of the subject.

In this case Mike Starmer has raised a very relevant point in drawing our collective attention to the similarity between PRU Blue and US Navy Blue Gray, which I have to admit, for some reason, did not occur to me at the time I was writing the article on the RAF Fortress Mkl.

Whilst it is unwise to place too much reliance on colour photographs per se, I do think that Mr Starmer’s observations are valid. A comparison between the colour chips in the books he mentions does reveal how very similar PRU Blue and Blue Gray appear to be, and I have to agree with him when he says that Dark Blue 29 is a stronger colour than that apparent in the colour photograph referred to in the article.

Whilst I have not yet tried Mr Starmer’s paint formulae for myself, I have brushed-out two commercially available modelling paints, one of Blue Gray and one of PRU Blue. These two colours straddle the Blue Gray chip in J Elliott’s book, one being slightly lighter, and the other slightly darker. The PRU blue has been checked against, and was found to match, BS 381C 636 PRU Blue. In natural daylight, the colours are almost indistinguishable and could easily be assumed to be brushed-out samples from different batches of the same colour!

Having had this similarity between PRU Blue and Blue Gray now pointed out to me, I am quite happy to retract the suggestion that Fullers TL 8997 Deep Sky Blue might have been similar to Dark Blue 29, and to agree with Mr Starmer’s suggestion that it might have been similar to US Nay Blue Gray instead.

Although I am grateful to Mr Starmer for pointing out the similarity between PRU Blue and US Navy Blue Gray, I am kicking myself for not noticing this for myself, especially as I have a copy of J Elliott’s book on the shelf behind me as I write! In addition to this, as soon as I read Mr Starmer’s letter, I remembered that lan Huntley had noted the similarity between PRU Blue and Blue Gray many years ago, (in ‘Scale Aircraft Modelling, February 1986), which I had forgotten about!

Thus I came to experience one of those quintessential Homer Simpson moments, where you realise that it has all gone horribly wrong and that there is nothing further that you can do but to look disappointed and say “Doh!”

The origin of Deep Sky.

Some question still remains as to whether Deep Sky ever found its way onto a 90 Sqn Fortress. Deep Sky originated during 1941 as a result of work carried out by the RAE at Farnborough, to devise a suitable camouflage colour for use on under surfaces of high altitude aircraft. Beginning in January 1941, with the then new colour Azure
Blue, by May 1941, the colour had been progressively darkened by up to 30 percent. The resulting hue, called ‘Ultra Blue’ by the RAE, was submitted to the Air Ministry on 13 May 1941 where it was discovered to be almost identical to Titanine’s Cosmic blue.

These results were shared with the Director of Scientific Research at the MAP who was of the opinion that a much darker shade of blue would give better results than the blues which had been tried up to that time, and by the end of May 1941 further work had been put in hand with two new shades, Dark Ultra Blue and Extra Dark Ultra Blue being ready for trials in June 1941.

On 11 August 1941, A&AEE Boscombe Down wrote to the RAE suggesting that the colour adopted should be similar to Extra Dark Ultra Blue but that it should be more dull, whilst the finish should be as matt as the Night fighter black, (ie Special Night). The entire fuselage surface and wing under surface should be covered with the camouflage blue. The roundels should be deleted.

In the light of this, it would appear that the colour was adjusted slightly, and on 27 August 1941, the RAE wrote to the MAP enclosing a sample panel of the colour which the RAE was recommending for the camouflage of the under surfaces of high altitude aircraft as a result of the trials carried out by A&AEE Boscombe Down. The name Deep Sky was suggested for the new colour and the finish was more matt than the standard Type S finish to obviate the ‘sun glint’ observed on fuselages at high altitudes.

On 5 September 1941, a Postagram was sent from the Air Ministry to HO Bomber Command and HO Coastal Command informing them that the high altitude camouflage trials carried out by A&AEE at Boscombe Down had indicated that the colour then in use on Fortress Mk Is in Bomber Command and PRU aircraft in Coastal Command was not so good as the Ultra Blue Extra Dark shade produced by the RAE for use in the trials. It was requested that each Command should state whether they wished to undertake operational trials of the new colour themselves before adopting the finish, or whether they wished for arrangements to be made for all high altitude aircraft to be given the new finish on the strength of the RAE recommendation.

The question was debated only briefly at HO Bomber Command in two memos, dated 9 September 1941. In the first memo, the suggestion was put to the Group Captain (Operations) that arrangements should be made to paint the Fortresses in the ‘extra dark blue paint’ without carrying out any further service trials. The Group Captain (Operations) then sent a similar memo to the SASO who ticked the memo and initialled it ‘RS’ the following day, with the Group Captain (Operations) being asked to take the necessary action to inform the Air Ministry and 2 Group on 11 September.

The Chief Engineering Officer at HO Bomber Command was informed of the decision in a memo dated 13 September 1941, which stated that the SASO had agreed that Fortress aircraft of 2 Group were to be painted in the ‘extra dark blue’ as recommended by the RAE without conducting any further trials and that arrangements therefore needed to be made to have this work carried out.

The MAP had been informed of this decision by 25 September, when an internal Minute was circulated to a number of departments stating that the under surface colour recommended by
Boscombe Down for High Flying Aircraft had been accepted by Bomber Command without further trial with the request that this finish should be made available for application to the under surfaces of all Fortresses. It was requested that the new colour be given a proper name and that it should be allocated DTD and Vocabulary of Stores reference numbers. The memo went on to state that supplies of the new colour would be required by HO 2 Group at Polebrook and at Burtonwood, and that arrangements should be made to apply this colour to Fortresses at Aircraft Servicing Units as soon as it became available.

By 3 October 1941, the MAP had arranged to supply the new colour for use on Fortresses. The name given to the colour, as suggested by the RAE on 27 August, was to be Deep Sky and the areas on the aircraft to which it will be applied were those defined by No 2 Pattern, including the sides of the fin and the rudder. This became known as No 2 Pattern (Day). Coastal Command had stated that they were satisfied with Cosmic Blue which was now officially named PRU Blue. The MAP are thought to have given instructions for the B-17Es which were expected to be delivered under Lend-Lease to have Deep Sky under surfaces on 6 October 1941. As can be seen from this, by October 1941 both Bomber Command and the MAP had sanctioned the use of Deep Sky on Fortresses but whether any of No 90 Squadron’s aircraft ever received this finish is unknown.

In the past it has been suggested that the only Fortress Mk I to receive Deep Sky under surfaces was AN526, during its time at Colerne in 1942 after the type had been withdrawn from front line service in Bomber Command. AN526 was apparently used as a ‘live target’ for both radar and interceptors as Fighter Command attempted to develop tactics to counter high altitude bombers as it was expected that the Luftwaffe might shortly begin to operate such aircraft over the UK. It has also been claimed that some 90 Sqn aircraft not only received Deep Sky under surfaces but also Red code letters, but again this cannot be confirmed.

Whether the Fortress Mk Is which were detached to the Middle East in November 1941 ever had Deep Sky under surfaces is also unknown.

Not wishing to hijack in any way..but thought this might be of interest..

I have a Ministry of Aviation Av.P 970 Design Requirements for Aircrarft of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy publication sat in front of me, which contains a rather nice section with colour sample cards featuring none other than this troublesome “Sky” dated 1st September 1948.

If anyone is interested, drop me a PM as it is surplus to my requirements.

Ta!

Timbo

AP has now found a new home, no longer available 😀

Jeepman.

http://amair4raf.blogspot.com/

“No doubt the usual forum gremlin will pop up and bleat that specifications were not always followed, so that any colour opined by him is a better choice. In the absence of any other evidence (as opposed to opinion or “points of view”) this author prefers primary source material such as this factory drawing and the contemporary colour cards upon which to base conclusions.

Colour photographs are never to be trusted, especially formatted digital images but note from interest the light and sandy appearance of the ‘Dark Earth’ in contrast to the other colours.”

I Like it. No clouding the issue of ‘Sky’ with this gentleman for sure. 🙂

Mark

Av.P 970 Design Requirements

Not wishing to hijack in any way..but thought this might be of interest..

I have a Ministry of Aviation Av.P 970 Design Requirements for Aircrarft of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy publication sat in front of me, which contains a rather nice section with colour sample cards featuring none other than this troublesome “Sky” dated 1st September 1948.

If anyone is interested, drop me a PM as it is surplus to my requirements.

Ta!

Timbo

And one on Deep Sky and the Fortress

In the same issue of Scale Aircraft Modelling, a letter from Dave Fleming comments on Fortress Mk I colour schemes. The colours were described rather accurately by Michael J. F. Bowyer in his book Bombing Colours 1937-1973. The book is long out of print, but is based on colour observations made by the author himself. Fortress Is are said to have worn a Dark Green/Dark Earth/Sky finish, with medium grey codes, until late June
1941. Before operations started in July, the Dark Earth was replaced by a dark grey shade and the codes became Sky. At the beginning of August 1941, the aircraft’s undersurfaces received a new colour. Quoting Bowyer: ‘It was Azure Blue, which became the standard colour until their withdrawal from European operations …. although over their period of service I managed to see all of 90 Squadron’s aircraft, I never at any time saw any in the supposed Deep Sky finish, and none after July wearing brown-green camouflage’.

Claudio Narduzzi, via e-mail

Except for the fact that the original Boeing production drawings quote “Deep Sky Blue” – see the website below for the drawings and the picture on that website is surely a factory shot .

http://amair4raf.blogspot.com/

A letter published in a magazine nearly ten years ago

Sky – from a manufacturer’s point of view
Dear Neil,
In Camouflage & Markings No 2 ‘The Battle for Britain’, Paul Lucas succinctly covers the official specifications and formal production colours available for application to aircraft during the period in question and makes some strong cases for the variations in finish and shade reported. His suggestion/question that the Defiant pictured on p 31 and pp 54/55 was finished in Eau-de-Nil, (or certainly an Eau-de-Nil shade), may well be correct. However, I would caution against making such a sweeping statement just on the basis of one photograph, and not even an original print at that.

The smoothness of finish on Boulton Paul Defiant airframes was the subject of much discussion prior to the Battle of Britain. Unlike manufacturers such as Hawker, Boulton Paul had no upto-date camouflage drawing layout experience and produced its camouflage drawing for the Defiant as a purely instructional drawing rather than a true illustration, taking the outlines directly from the Air Diagrams as supplied, and showing no clear undersurface demarcation.

The revision of Night/White undersurfaces to the wings were clearly specified as ‘between the leading edge and trailing edge’ only. In addition they listed the colours by Stores Vocabulary as most other companies did. The drawings simply stated the original shades as Dark Green, Dark Earth and Aluminium. I have been studying the corrections where the colours have changed on the actual original tracing, and the RDM2A night fighter finish shows multiple alterations one over another until some areas have been rubbed right through!

There are also similar multiple alterations to the fuselage roundel to the final ‘narrow white/yellow’ type. What is clear at least is that the only formal drawing changes for the undersides were from Aluminium to Aluminium/Night/White and thence direct to Sky. However, for example, the drawing does retain the ‘soft merged edges’ statement for upper camouflage even when we know, both from Paul’s comments and from my own discussions many years ago with Boulton Paul fitters, that a hard edge demarcation was introduced very early on.

There is some sort of statement regarding smoothness and methods but this has not been deciphered so far. Colours appear to have been in the standard DTD 308, at least for the identification colours, except that when RDM2A was introduced the identification specs appear to have been deliberately changed from DTD308 back to DTD83A, just as the stencil lines etc went to dull red.

The 1940 camouflage on Defiants was applied using sheets of rubberised fabric like huge mats, trimmed to the camouflage shape and bevelled/rounded at the edges to give a minimum overspray. The undersides were sprayed first, on to the primer unless they could be pre-finished as panels prior to fitting to the airframe. Only A and B schemes were specified on the drawing but it would have been possible to transpose the colours by mistake as mats were available for both upper shade outlines.

No underside demarcation masks were used initially when painting the upper colours. This meant the painter could not accurately match the exact level of finish of Dark Green and Dark
Earth as it met the undersurfaces and a slight overspray mismatch is seen on many pre-delivered aircraft. When the change from Night/White/Aluminium came there would be many undercowl components finished in Aluminium so, even with Sky undersides, machines were frequently test flown with Aluminium finished lower cowls. The cowl line at least was then corrected and cleaned up ‘off-aircraft’ prior to delivery. Wing leading edges were cleaned up ‘on-aircraft’ as were rear fuselages in theory the latter’s minor discrepancies frequently went uncorrected due to the requirement for urgent deliveries during the April to June 1940 period in particular.

The Defiant in question on p 31 of C & M No 2 ‘The Battle for Britain’, is N1673, (not N1573), and is shown on a Manufacturer’s Test Flight, probably in late July 1940. It was fitted with guns for the flight deliberately and cleaned up for photographic purposes. This photograph of N1673 was made on a 4″ x 31/4″ glass plate negative using a hand held camera. Prints of these were then copied on to a 10″ x 8″ glass plates for the factory archives. A print from the 10″ x 8″ glass plates was later copied again in the 1950/60s and used as the ‘standard’ print to send out to anyone requiring a photograph of the Defiant. As each negative deteriorated from use it was replaced by a new negative taken from one of its prints, photographed under a glass plate. It was therefore a third generation copy – minimum. What might be taken as minor ‘lens flare’ on the top left and bottom right of the picture might have been caused by being originally photographed though canopy Perspex and then re-photographed through a glass sheet. Of the approx one dozen photographs of N1673 taken, only two that I have seen exhibit gloss undersides, all the rest have no sheen whatever. Also, whilst even original prints from the 4″ x 31/4″ negatives actually do not show a tonal difference between the lower cowl and the rest of the undersides, some negatives do. The lower cowl and oil cooler fairing may therefore still be in smooth Aluminium, although I would suspect not by this time or on this aircraft.

For some reason many of the machines had a much smoother finish on the undersides and topsides at this time and both surfaces had a similar slight sheen, possibly the result of smoothing and polishing. It might well be the application of early Sky ‘Type S’ or a mixed matching of the Eau-de-NiI shade obtained directly from the manufacturers.

John North of Boulton Paul had good working relationship with many sources within the industry and it would have been typical of him to seize upon just this sort of detail and attempt to find a solution which gave a smooth finish. Unfortunately, no production correspondence of this sort survives. Looking at the overcast weather however it may well just be that the airframe was wet on the day of the photographs and the undersides still retained more water from the wet grass of the airfield giving it the appearance of a high gloss in some photos.

We all tend to like to fit paint shades into neat little specific cubbyholes, but let us not forget that the manufacturer was not normally provided with ‘free issue’ paint. He had to obtain it by direct purchase from a manufacturer and, if unavailable, I would suggest that only finishes produced to Specification DTD308 or 83A would have been tried on undelivered Defiant production aircraft at factory level without official agreement. As an ‘in camera’ case the Defiant always seemed to receive advance warning and early supply of paint changes during 1940/41 so I would question the validity of a claim for non-availability of Sky at this manufacturer at least.

Even if this was so, as recent producers of the Blackburn Roe with sides and undersides to DTD 308 Sky Grey (less the Night/White wings), I would suggest that faced with a lack of stocks of Sky it would have been likely that Boulton Paul would have mixed its stocks of Sky Grey with small amounts of green paint to obtain as near a match to Sky as possible whilst conforming in all other respects to the technical specification until sufficient Sky was available, and would have agreed such a move with its resident AID inspector. The known urgency of Defiant deliveries during April to July 1940 would not have allowed Boulton Paul production to wait any significant time for supplies of Sky or its alternatives from any distant source, suggesting that they arrived co-incident with the instruction/AID chip or were producible in house. Of course the close location of Manders paint factory in Wolverhampton may well have helped in this respect. There is at least one letter in my archives which confirms that Boulton Paul exceeded its planned output at that time in line with formal requests from the Ministry of Aircraft Production for ‘maximum effort’ on deliveries at all costs. When faced with a need to provide a differing background on its oil header tank filler stencils it went straight to those self-same stocks and used a straight application of Medium Sea Grey.

Incidentally, N1673 was delivered to 6 MU on 8/8/40 and to 264 Sqn on 25/8/40, subsequently serving with 141 Sqn, 2 AGS, 277 Sqn and 2 AGS again before being struck off charge Cat E on 14/9/43 and thereby avoiding the ignominious conversion to TT.1I1standard.

Les Whitehouse

And one on Deep Sky and the Fortress

Seafire Mk XVII and more B-17C colours

…………..

In the same issue of Scale Aircraft Modelling, a letter from Dave Fleming comments on Fortress Mk I colour schemes. The colours were described rather accurately by Michael J. F. Bowyer in his book Bombing Colours 1937-1973. The book is long out of print, but is based on colour observations made by the author himself. Fortress Is are said to have worn a Dark Green/Dark Earth/Sky finish, with medium grey codes, until late June
1941. Before operations started in July, the Dark Earth was replaced by a dark grey shade and the codes became Sky. At the beginning of August 1941, the aircraft’s undersurfaces received a new colour. Quoting Bowyer: ‘It was Azure Blue, which became the standard colour until their withdrawal from European operations …. although over their period of service I managed to see all of 90 Squadron’s aircraft, I never at any time saw any in the supposed Deep Sky finish, and none after July wearing brown-green camouflage’.

Claudio Narduzzi, via e-mail

Sorry to contradict but you have this completely mixed up.

Thanks for the clarification, that has, pardon the joke, thrown some light on the subject.

Oh come on, Galdri…..you’ve gotta laugh!!

Four intense pages trying to descibe or explain the colour Sky (or any colour!) has more than a hint of irony. (Thats Irony Type S, of course!)

Now….has anyone noticed anything strange about the Dulux colour known as Mangnolia? Do you think the earlier shade had a hint of Eau de Nil about it?

Whilst an interesting discussion, to a point, I think I will loose the will to live and become terminally confused if I read any more about Sky!

Hue would have believed it – Mangnolia?

I was thinking of going there on a trip. “Genghis Khan” and all that.

Night Night Andy, time for my Horlicks.

Mark

Brings a whole new meaning to “Reach for the Sky” doesn’t it

Oh come on, Galdri…..you’ve gotta laugh!!

Four intense pages trying to descibe or explain the colour Sky (or any colour!) has more than a hint of irony. (Thats Irony Type S, of course!)

Now….has anyone noticed anything strange about the Dulux colour known as Mangnolia? Do you think the earlier shade had a hint of Eau de Nil about it?

Whilst an interesting discussion, to a point, I think I will loose the will to live and become terminally confused if I read any more about Sky!

Christ guys. Get a grip:eek: This many pages splitting hairs over a paint hue? Someone needs to get a live.

Expecially as the correct answer can never been found;)

Oh no! Just when I thought I’d got my head around the fact that Sky actually was Sky after all (unless it wasn’t Sky) I find that I now have no idea what Night is, either!

😮

This could go on for years……!

Best that James and I don’t get too involved in the four or five versions of white on a flying boat then? 🙂

Just imagine how large this thread would be if a certain ‘V bomber’ was using this colour … ????? or does it ????;)

Keith.

A thread to take on the “Scrapyards” or the “Lightning QRA shed” at last…:dev2:

Oh and just because no-one else has said it, “Will Sky or Sky ‘S’ type be at Legends…?” 😀

Oh no! Just when I thought I’d got my head around the fact that Sky actually was Sky after all (unless it wasn’t Sky) I find that I now have no idea what Night is, either!

😮

This could go on for years……!

Did the Syrians use Sky Type S? :confused:

Dunno – can’t you pop over there and check – those Mk22s are still waiting in the desert to be rescued……………….

Along with the Syrian PzKfw VI Tigers

Can we talk about late war Luftwaffe Colours now – specifically the non existent “RLM84” colour which everybody says is the same colour as Sky (or should that be Sky Type L – for Luftwaffe)

And how about this one as well

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1239906340/RAF+Dark+Earth-+two+diferent+shades–

surely not.

Also the original night finish RDM2 (a black) was found in service, as we all know, to be far too rough and matt. It was replaced with Night which actually is a black tinted with ultramarine making it a very very deep blue. Later usage over Germany revealed that it reflected almost white in searchlights so it was useless as a concealing colour in areas of bright ambient light (i.e. searchlights or burning cities). The USAAF painted their nightfighters like the P61 Black Widow in Gloss Black which oddly had far less reflective appearance, while the RAF turned to a Medium Sea Grey/Dark Green on top and MSG underneath for its nightfighters replacing the earlier Night finish.

At the end the Night finish on bombers seems to have become somewhat less matt.

Sorry to contradict but you have this completely mixed up. The original Night was DTD 308. Ultramarine was added to make the paint more durable, not to alter the colour and it is described as a very dark grey or gunmetal colour, not dark blue. RMD2 was a later introduction with only Carbon Black pigment. The change in night fighter camouflage was to all over Medium Sea Grey with a disruptive pattern of Dark Green on the upper surfaces. The Night Intruder scheme was the same with the under surfaces Night. During the period 27th November 1940 until 22nd April 1941 when the port wing of day fighters was ordered to be painted black the paint to be used was DTD 441. This was a semi-permanent, washable paint to facilitate the removal of the marking if or when it became desirable.

There were two types of Night used in WW II. Night was first developed in 1936 as a countermeasure to searchlights and for which it was effective.

At a conference held at the Air Ministry on 13th February 1936 it was decided that a suitable camouflage finish for use on the under surface of Coastal Area Flying Boats to render them inconspicuous in the glare from a searchlight or flare should be developed. This task was delegated to the School of Naval Co-operation in partnership and under the supervision of the RAE. The existing matt black paint used by the RAF, Y.B.L.4., had only Carbon Black as a pigment. While it had a very matt finish when freshly applied, the Carbon Black pigment was so soft that with a little rubbing it became glossy and this was considered unsuitable if used by itself. Laboratory tests showed that mixtures of Carbon Black and harder Ultramarine pigments produced a finish which was of low reflectivity and also quite durable. Full scale comparative tests between Y.B.L.4. (Carbon Black pigment); Blue Black (made from Ultramarine and Carbon Black pigments); and dark blue (made up of Ultramarine pigment and black dye) and Dark Green were made by applying them to aircraft which were then illuminated by searchlights. Trials began in late March and continued into April 1936 with the results of the experiments being submitted to the Air Ministry in an RAE report during the first week of May 1936. This report concluded that of the four finishes, the blue black, on account of its greater hardness, was considered the more serviceable and no further developments were recommended. On 8th May 1936, the Air Ministry asked the RAE to submit 12 samples of ‘Night’ which were dispatched on 26th May 1936. On 10th June 1936, the RAE received a letter which along with other matters suggested that besides the under surfaces, the new ‘Night’ shade would also be convenient for the identification lettering on the camouflaged upper surfaces and as an overall finish on the airscrews.

At the start of WW II trials were being carried out at the AAEE and 85 Squadron to develop a new matt black camouflage paint that would have a non-reflective surface. This was developed into RMD 2 Special Night which was promulgated as the finish for the under surfaces of night bombers from January 1940. RMD 2 Special Night contained only carbon black pigment but of a larger size than used in DTD 308 Night. This gave it a Ultr matt, very sooty black appearance sometimes described as lamp black and was very rough to the touch like sandpaper.

On 30th Oct 1940 a meeting was held at the Air Ministry at which the subject of night fighter camouflage was discussed. The outcome was an agreement that night fighters be painted Matt Black overall. On 24th March 1941 DTD Circular no 144 was issued that explained that night fighter finish was to be RMD 2A Special Night. Service users and aircraft manufacturers experienced difficulties in the application of RMD 2 Special Night. It was found to crack and peel away when applied on top of existing finishes. The worst problems seemed to be in applying it to metal surfaces. It adhered to the fabric of Wellingtons much better. Aircraft manufactures found that it attacked the primer with the result that both layers peeled off in large flakes. RAE investigation decided the solution was to revise the formulation using a more volatile base. By the end of September 1940 the formula had been changed to contain Ethyl Cellulose and the nomenclature of specification changed to RMD 2A.

Comparative trials of two Mosquitoes fitted with different exhaust shrouds resulted in a speed difference of 26 mph. This was found to be due mainly to the slower aircraft being painted with RMD 2A Special Night while the other was painted with DTD 308 Night. This reached the attention of the CinC Fighter Command who in Memo CS 11061, 5th Feb 1942, urged all production Mosquito night fighters to be finished with DTD 308 Night and all aircraft in service be returned to ASUs for repainting. There was some confusion between RDM 2A Special Night and DTD 308 Night so in an order dated 11th Oct 1942 DTD 308 was renamed Smooth Night. RMD 2/2A went out of use relaced by its predecessor DTD 308 Smooth Night. Smooth Night was not a new finish as some people think, just the old paint with a new name.

Meanwhile, AAEE and 85 Squadron had been conducting further trials to find a better finish for night fighters. It was found that at night, in moonlight or above cloud in good visibility, the all black Smooth Night tended to silhouette the aircraft too clearly. As a result a new night fighter finish of overall Medium Sea Grey with a disruptive pattern of Dark Green on the upper surfaces was promulgated from 1st Oct 1942. The same order stated that Intruder aircraft be finished with the standard Day Fighter scheme of Ocean Grey and Dark Green upper surfaces and Smooth Night under surfaces.

Research in the US indicating that a high gloss black finish was more effective in delaying searchlight pickup than a matt black one, prompted an operational trial to be carried out on 50 Rootes built Halifax B.IIIs during late 1944. The trials were considered successful and this led to the adoption of a gloss black finish for the under surfaces of RAF heavy bombers, known as Anti-Searchlight Glossy Black. It was intended that this finish be applied to Tiger Force bombers. It appears that this did not actually happen and it is currently thought that few, if any, had it applied on the production line. It may have been applied later to Lancasters in the Tiger Force scheme.

Hurry up and agree, you lot -I need to order 14,750 tinlets of Humbrol for PK624 and we want to make sure we get the right colour….:p

Did the Syrians use Sky Type S? :confused:

The RAAF and separately, IIRC, the RAF came up with the use of both a glossy white and a matt white on maritime anti-sub aircraft; the glossy on the underside, the matt on the sides, the different reflectivities having benefits. The RAAF tests were trialled on an Anson (well covered in Pentland, again) and I think the RAF experiments went into service on Sunderlands – this from an article in a recent model mag I have to pass to Pondskater! I may misrecall.

Spot on James, and thanks for thinking of me with the article. By e-mail would be good otherwise I need to send you my new address.
Anyway, this is how the AM wanted flying boats and other coastal aircraft painted in 1943. The gloss was created from either a special gloss synthetic or a transparent coating on the cellulose. I always thought that scheme very reminiscent of seagulls. Sunderlands started rolling out the factory in the new white scheme from March 1943 (according to photos in a new book on one of Short’s factories. ;))

It is an area where the semi-knowledgeable should be wary to tread

Oh well, back to the bunker then.

Allan

Given that most people viewing a model couldn’t tell one blue or a green from ‘another-nearly’ colour to it, I don’t think it’s that important.

Exactly, and won’t be viewed in the same way an aircraft would (all be that in various conditions aswel).