I think that, while the TSR2 was an impressive aircraft, history following her cancellation shows that the West was able to function militarily quite well without her. The economic plus is that Britain was saved an enormous level of government spending by being forced into using, if you were, off the shelf aircraft, with the exception of the redesign of the F4 (was that really necessary? The Yanks seemed to function quite well as the major power using it without Speys).

Aircraft like the Harrier owed their ongoing usefulness to the American purse, the Buccaneer (ostensibly the TSR2 part replacement) was only once used in combat (GW1) and briefly at that, while other major combat types have been developed quite successfully in European consortia (Jaguar, Tornado, Typhoon). Given the economic basis of the British economy as a function of population contributing through taxes to the spending by government on defence, Britain was just too small to independently develop a major weapon system like the TSR2 (the same problem that dogged her during WW2 and contributed to the post WW2 financial problems, Lend-Lease notwithstanding). The TSR2 equivalent in the US was a combination of the B58 and the F111 and both stretched the US budget and were retired relatively early. In Australia we still use the F111 but it is a servicing nightmare now and long due for retirement.

The situation might have been different if America or a consortium of European powers had been part of the financial backing for the TSR2 but that didn’t happen. So a lovely and impressive design but basically a step too far.

A comment on gloss or sheen on otherwise supposedly matt paints, and somewhat off the track entirely.

It seems to me that gloss or a sheen that creates a reflective highlight is detrimental if viewed from above, i.e. revealing the position of an aircraft below bit against the sky, i.e. viewed from below this would be less of a problem, simply because the light source is above. But then we encounter a problem which first became apparent in the ME.

The colour Azure Blue which was an original component of the RAF Desert Scheme of Dark Earth/Middle Stone and Azure Blue was found in use to be somewhat too light for desert operations which made it, like Sky which had seen some early use in the ME and Sky Blue the component of the Tropical Land Scheme Dark Green/Light Earth and Sky Blue stand out if viewed from below to be replaced at times by the darker Light and Dark Mediterranean Blue. Matt or a slight sheen disn’t seem to matter.

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.

This is a wonderful and interesting thread – Postfade’s pics are marvelous and the recollections of the people involved in Confrontation are great.

Welcome back again Malcolm.

Could I suggest that you put to one side modern commercial paint applied without temperture and quality control in sunny Iceland in winter. It is an irrelovance in this discussion.

If there was variation from the quoted and contractually supplied to DTD specification paint it would not get past the Aeronautical Inspection Directorate and that would include colour outside tolerance. That is why there are contractual specifications and that is why there are inspection systems in place to ensure compliance. A concession or deviation however might be negotiable on an individual batch basis.

This systm applied to every component down to individual rivets on the Spitfire and there is no reason why the paint should be any different.

Mark

I notice that you have conceded my point about the variability within a range of hues – “A concession or deviation however might be negotiable on an individual batch basis.” – so that is a breakthrough. That variability seems to be what the available sources show. I might point out that despite your determination to read my comments as such I have never said or implied that a batch of paint drastically different to the requirement would be accepted. If you could avoid that misunderstanding then we can discuss the matter quite fruitfully.

For NII_VVS, a modern example of eau-de-nil go to this –

http://www.heritagepaints.co.uk/eau_de_nil.html

Interestingly, and I know this is from Humbrol a manufacturer of paint for those irrelevent models, many years ago they included eau-de-nil in their range. That colour was nearly a match for the Heritage Paints product but slightly more yellowish IIRC which if my fading memory is correct comes closer to what we see suggested for some of the variations applied to undersides of aircraft in 1940. There is also an opinion that eau-de-nil was used as an interior colour for a short period prior to the war on some aircraft, IIRC early production Spitfires, but was supplanted by the familiar RAF Interior Grey Green. However Eau-de-Nil was not Sky it was Eau-de-Nil.

At the risk of being lectured yet again on the perils of using wartime colour photos, the deteriorating effects of burial and age on recovered samples from crash sites etc. etc. etc. all of which I was aware of years ago let me clarify what I am saying in regard to Sky the colour.

I am not for one moment denying, nor if you read my posts have I even inferred, that the AM intended anything other than that the colour Sky be a single definable colour. Which is to say they did not specify a Light Sky, a Medium Sky or a Dark Sky etc. What I have said is that it is apparent from the available evidence from recovered remains and from the various studies published that there were permutations in the actual colour that was produced by the various manufacturers to meet the AM specification. The official colour chips indicate the ideal while there were some variations in the actual paint supplied. That is all. I have reread my posts and I can’t see anywhere that I may have said otherwise – if by some chance my wording was unclear I certainly did not intend to imply otherwise.

The other colours which are sometimes used Light Blue, Eau-de-Nil are not, nor did I say, were called Sky. The theatre markings used post BoB appear to have been both Sky and also Light Blue, but Light Blue soon disappears as Sky takes over (and we also have the change to Sky codes in place of the Medium Sea Grey Codes). The use of those named non-Sky colours during middle 1940 seems to be related to paint availability rather than any intention to use them as permanent substitutes. Plus in that time of pressing need for paint supplies one would not expect wholesale rejection of a batch of paint for being either a little lighter, greener or bluer than what the spec. for the colour Sky required.

So Sky is a colour – something we all agree on but I am suggesting that there were permutations of it without that name being changed, however there were for a short period other colours used, those being Light Blue and Eau-de-Nil while production of the officially required Sky with all its slight pernutations caught up with demand.

But Malcolm you modified and deleted part of your post. The bit about the colour that we have come to know as ‘sky’… implying well after WWII.

Any study of colours has to recognise:- ……

Frankly I don’t see your point or purpose. True I edited the post – the changes were to correct a couple of minor typos nothing more. I am not in the habit of back editing my posts to make me look right all along so I suggest that you withdraw the implied slur.

Sky was in use well after WW2 on naval aircraft so again I don’t see the point of your statement. For those of us born after the war the most immediate use of the colour was on Naval aircraft. Sky itself showed a number of variations until around 1942 when its production colour seems to have stabilised, which was what you have said and so did I, so I cannot honestly see the problem.

Your colour chips are interesting but as this subject has already been done to death in published sources since the 60s I can’t see the point of discussing it again, and I was interested mainly in explaining the application changes to aircraft in the Temperate Land Scheme rather than trying to read into variations between batches of paint from different contractors any great world shattering significance.

As a colour Sky went through a period of change, and I was well aware of the writings of people like James Goulding way way back when they first appeared and somewhere I have a small chart produced in the 60s which showed all the variations of Sky from a palish blue right through to the pale green we know.

As for the rest of your caveats I completely agree and was so well aware of them as I expected others were that I felt no need to restate these oft repeated things. I could have, but in deference to assuming that you and others in this discussion would have at least that basic awareness I didn’t – perhaps I should have but I didn’t.

This discussion of Sky started with a simple question regarding a colour chip, the matter of the variations have been discussed ad infinitum since the 60s and probably before so I was not going to go into a long repeat of what had already been said – perhaps I should have as you appear to think that I am disagreeing with you.

I don’t intend to repeat what I said above about the changes in the colours or application to aircraft of Sky as they are correct and you can go back and read them. As for the S then I assume you have a copy of Lucas’ study – it is very good, he is a careful researcher and does back up his opinions with photographs, if you don’t then I suggest you get one.

I am aware of the changes that result from time and other factors caused to recovered aircraft parts but people who do study these things seriously are also aware of them and wherever possible try to use protected paint areas as the source of observations so your caveat there implies that they don’t, which is wrong. The study of WW2 camo colours is well detailed and really begins with efforts to understand the colours used by Axis aircraft and resulted in what is now a good understanding of these. For some reason perhaps excessive familiarity RAF colours were less well studied and it is only in the last few years that we are seeing detailed work appearing which is of the same depth as work done on Axis colour schemes. This has reignited discussion of Sky but ironically this was one colour whose permutations was well understood.

Another irony is that the research on these matters was started by the modelling fraternity, aircraft observers and other amateur enthusiasts who took notes and like Ian Huntly tried to translate into colour what they were seeing. The professional end of the business just saw all this as rather anorak behaviour, but ironically it is to the work of these people that our modern restorers now turn.

That is a restored aircraft incorporating what we now call Sky. The S just means smooth to differentiate it from some of the early matt paints which were rather rough (literally). It is a colour common to FAA aircraft post WW2 and was gradually developed to its current shade after 1941.

In the period 1940 – 41 a pale blue colour called rather appropriately Sky Blue is also used on the spinner and tail band theatre markings, as well during the BoB as an undersurface colour while the preferred Sky stocks caught up. This colour gradually disappears and by earlyish 1942 the Sky colour you are referring to becomes the standard.

If you want a good match I suggest Humbrol #90.