ChoxHow bizarre. Maybe it’s a Westland thing then? I know the term is often used by commercial companies for that spec number but not for RAF/FAA aircraft. Ask Dick Ward, Richard Caruana or Paul Lucas – I’m sure they’ll all tell you the same that post-war the roundel colour has always been Post Office Red. I honestly have no idea where the term Cherry Red might have come from.
PS – you mention model magazines and I agree it’s true that they do sometimes perpetuate myths, but in this case I have never seen any use of the term “Cherry Red”, other than on a few ill-informed modelling forum threads. In fairness to the modelling magazines (well, some of them at least!) they are often the only sources of reliable information, especially when it comes from the likes of the afore-mentioned authors and of course the late Ian Huntley. Just because a lot of the information in modelling magazines can often be complete rubbish, it doesn’t mean that it all is, and in some respects it has been the modelling press that has enabled reliable information on colour schemes to survive. Plenty of museum exhibits have been faithfully reproduced in accurate colours and markings thanks to modelling research!
ChoxWhat “official drawings” ? The red used in the roundel has always been referred-to as either Roundel Red or Post Office Red since it was first introduced post-war. I have heard the term “Cherry Red” before but only informally, not as part of any official paint specs. What drawings are you referring to?
Choxer no, Post Office Red actually. Where the hell has “Cherry Red” come from?! (oh no, another can of worms…)
ChoxRegarding the colours saga, the variations in the shade of dayglow orange is due to various factors. As has been said, some aircraft relied upon stick-on patches which inevitably faded to yellow and then white. The paint applications faded in much the same way.
Other factors had an influence too, including the colour of the primer underneath. Likewise, there does appear to have been more than one primary shade of dayglow orange although to be fair, probably 99 percent of British military aircraft carried precisely the same shade of dayglow. It was just a question of the undercoat, duration/durability of the paint finish, and lighting conditions which affected the outcome. Rob’s photos of WP314 and WF131 illustrate things magnificently. Same camera and same film, same day even, and look how different the two aircraft are. But they were both painted precisely the same in precisely the same colours…
Then of course, there’s the inevitable problem of photographic reproduction – cameras never capture dayglow properly. Even black & white images show dayglow in different shades, varying from dark grey through to white, depending on the type of film, filters, etc.
As for FAA aircraft, dayglow was replaced (as has been stated previously) by red paint. Signal Red in fact (although the roundel colour remained Post Office Red. The red paint lasts much longer than dayglow and remains in use to this day (Sea Kings, etc.). However, the application of red didn’t begin until the Sea Princes had been retired. I seem to recall that one or two Princes did receive red paint after retirement (on fire dumps etc.) but in service? Nope. Same applies to the Meteor T7. It was black (or silver) with dayglow (not red) panels.
ChoxDi-electrics are the actual transmitter/receiver ‘aerial’ bit of a system
That’s kind of what I was getting at. It rather suggests that the lower nose panels were simply manufactured from a different material and although still painted white, it gives the appearance of being a “different white” to the anti-flash finish applied to the rest of the aircraft.
I’ve given up trying to answer or responding to him Baloffski, I’ve withdrawn posts from here and the Bucc thread because he comes across as seeking answers and then dosen’t listen to replies from others – not good for someone hired to write books.
Good, I’m glad to hear it. What you don’t quite seem to have grasped is that the comments made on the Sea Prince thread were patently wrong. That’s why I didn’t “listen to the replies” as you put it. Anyway, as I’ve asked before, could you please keep your snipes to yourself as they add nothing to the forum.
ChoxHow come the Tornado had a black (and then grey) radome then?
Choxfolk get so worked up about paint schemes
Well maybe “worked up” is a bit excessive. Just disappointed I guess. The Buccaneer at Gatwick is a unique aeroplane and it is a shame when it gets repainted so that it no longer looks like the aircraft that it was. But if it is to be repainted that’s good news. As for the Sea Princes, it’s just a shame (at least to me) that they just don’t look like Sea Princes with red paint on them. Bit like the Sea Vixen when it was painted in those ghastly Red Bull colours (which caused endless controversy), and even our beloved Vulcan which wears a paint scheme that no Vulcan ever wore in RAF service. Naturally it’s good that any great aeroplane survives but it is annoying when they just don’t look like they did when they were in service. It’s especially annoying when replicating an authentic paint scheme really isn’t difficult to achieve.
may have been aimed at the S1, as those gyrons were guttless
True, but I guess the origin of that particular nickname will remain a mystery. But then, who comes up with names like “Tiffy” and “Tonka” and so on? Never ceases to amaze me how enthusiasts can’t bear to use an aircraft’s proper name. I suppose we should be grateful that nobody started calling Phantoms “Phannies” ?!
ChoxLike most of these nicknames, it seems to have been coined by enthusiasts rather than aircrew. Tonka, Tiffy, you know the list…
ChoxWhy would that be? The paint spec. is for overall white not grey?! I think perhaps you refer to the above photo where the panels do look grey-ish with a blue tint, but that’s down to the photograph. I assume the effect is simply created due to the anti-flash paint being more of a semi-gloss finish, whereas the panel look as if they were a matt finish. It’s difficult to establish precisely what the colours looked like now, four decades on. Colour photographs are, by definition, merely interpretations of the original. Reminds me of the infamous saga when Fuji released their Velvia colour slide film. Everybody loved it because the colours were supposedly “so authentic” and then Fuji admitted that they had deliberately tweaked the colour reproduction to look far more vivid than reality – simply because that’s how people perceived reality! Colours are a nightmare!
ChoxPhoto of WF118 taken in 1974, while she was still in service with 750 NAS. Seems to be the same colours she wears today.
Well no, it shows the standard dayglow orange colour but the photograph (like most photographs of dayglow-painted aircraft) simply doesn’t show it very well.
Pagen01 – Sea Princes didn’t carry International Orange, in fact that’s essentially an American designation. It was standard dayglow orange/red (referred to as orange or red depending on the publication). I accept that some Princes do appear to have been painted with a more reddish shade of dayglow at some stages (although again even this may simply be a symptom of poor photographic reproduction), but if such mis-matches did occur, I suspect that this was more to do with easy availability of paint stocks rather than any specific colour scheme directive. The vast majority of Sea Princes (almost all of them in fact) wore standard dayglow orange, using the same paint which was applied to the helicopter fleet.
As far as I can recall, the only FAA aircraft which wore glossy red patches were the FRADU Canberras, Chipmunks and Hunters (okay, some helicopters too), towards the end of their careers.
Not a case of listening to anyone else’s input at all. I understand why the Gatwick Princes have received red paint, and that’s fine, if that is the view taken by the museum. The red paint will certainly look smarter for much longer than dayglow ever would, but my point is that, as a punter who likes to see aircraft as they once were, the Princes look very odd wearing red paint which they didn’t carry whilst in service. Okay, it’s good that aircraft like the Sea Princes are being preserved, but it’s just frustrating when they appear in distinctly non-authentic paint schemes.
ChoxYou are obviously an expert on Sea Prince colours, not!
The red used on the Sea Prince predates the use of Dayglo
Well I’m afraid that’s not true. Sea Princes were delivered in silver finish with dayglow orange trim. Most had a white top to the fuselage. The silver was eventually replaced by Light Aircraft Grey and the white top was removed. There were exceptions (such as those in RAF style communications colours and some which wore silver with yellow trainer bands) but they didn’t carry red patches either. The nose, wing and tail trim was always dayglow. As for the actual shade, some aircraft appear to have worn a red-ish shade of dayglow but on the vast majority of aircraft it was the standard orange as applied to Wessex, Whilrwinds, Hillers, etc. It was still this same shade in 1977 when I fingered the paint in the hangars at Culdrose!
Okay, I know why so many Sea Princes have now received red paint, and I understand the need to keep the aircraft looking smart. But using red instead of orange just makes the aircraft look odd. I accept that dayglow fades but it faded whilst in service use too, therefore it seems reasonable to allow it to do the same in a museum? Far better to carry faded dayglow than a non-authentic red which ruins one’s nostalgia trip!
I don’t know why red is sometimes found under the orange on some Princes but I guess it’s simply a primer colour. The same red can be found on the black/dayglow Meteors used by the FAA. In the case of WP308, you’re assumption that it now wears an “early” paint scheme would be wrong in any case as it certainly had a white top by 1966 (together with dayglow trim) and was therefore, presumably delivered in this scheme.
Good to hear that the Buccaneer will be repainted in due course!
Sorry to sound so negative, and of course I’m a big fan of the Gatwick museum, but from a punter’s point of view it really is frustrating to see lovely old aircraft repainted in colours that they never worse. Drives me bonkers!
ChoxI guess the answer is that the panels (as illustrated above) are white, but so is the rest of the airframe. Presumably it’s the difference in finish rather than the actual colour. Anti-flash is certainly white, but it looks pretty odd when you see the lower panels on the Victor’s nose, which look even whiter!
It speaks volumes for the countless number of colour shots where the white has been mis-matched as a sort of cream. Reminds me of the ancient I-Spy book with a distinctly cream Vulcan on the cover!
ChoxThanks for the feedback guys. Maybe the contrast in colour is just a symptom of different materials then and that most of the photos are (as I feared) simply poorly colour-matched!:)
ChoxOh dear… why have they painted the blue patches in the wrong shade?
The poor Sea Princes at Gatwick were treated to gloss red (instead of dayglow) – now the Buccaneer gets spoiled too. Why can’t simple colours be reproduced accurately?
ChoxI agree entirely that the incentive behind the project will almost certain be one of money. If a business can make a few bob out of a Concorde then doubtless it will. All I was saying (although Page seems to have missed my point) was that it is a little sad that attention can be given to a project such as this, while the Vulcan struggles. We all know the reasons why, but it’s still sad, nonetheless.
Sign In
