[QUOTE=pagen01;1736411]Deliberate goading is pathetic Adrian,[QUOTE]
Not ‘goading’, just curious as to how you interpret this colour?
[QUOTE=pagen01;1735924]
I’m not saying that the red is bright red as in RAF trainers but an orangy red, like a flat verison of fluorescent red orange used on some SAR machines, as in this pic of a WF118 here, http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/372288.html, the colour isn’t far of the roundal red or the Provosts behind.[QUOTE]
Ah, now I can see how this confusion has come about, as this photo is exactly how different types of film and processing can interpret ‘Dayglo’. On the left is a scan from my official colour swatch or how the ‘Dayglo’ should look and I would be interested in comments how this is viewed on the PC. Alongside it are scans from my British Standards swatch of official red paint shades used by the RAF and RN. Hope you can all see the differences, but this still doesn’t show the brightness of fluorescent/Dayglo.
Fantastic shot by my old friend Chris England there, I know his photo archive of Culdrose in that period is second to none. Keep em coming!:)
[/QUOTE]
Yes lovely and Dayglo again…..or do you see this as ‘plain red’?:confused:
The whole issue seems to revolve around the inability to tell ‘Dayglo’ from ‘plain postbox red’. Like Tim, I am convinced that the 750 Squadron Sea Princes started life as overall natural metal with golden yellow trainer bands, then were overall metal with ‘Fire Orange’ (a reddish orange) Dayglo extremities. Around the early ’70s, the metal areas were painted Light Aircraft Grey and the Dayglo was repainted in a slightly more orangish hue, but at no time was ‘plain postbox/signal/cherry red’ paint used….unless someone can come up with a colour photo that proves otherwise.
Once everyone has grasped these facts, then we can move on to the Gatwick Museum examples which, although incorrectly repainted, look smart and will endure a longer period looking like that than wearing Dayglo paint which will need constant attention. We purists have to accept that on behalf of the general public, just as long as the museum does.
Paint stripped Sea Prince.
Found six or seven layers of paint and primer.
Some of layers were DayGlo, lowest layer, that nearest the metal was red.
For AMBs benefit; not orange, not DayGlo, not orangelike but red, as in red. Please don’t make me repeat it again, you’ve already worn that one out.
Thanks for clarifying that Peter. So if it was the colour nearest the metal, that would make it the primer, or undercoat and not any final top coat!
I rest my (and Tim’s case)!
Has anyone got any ideas how to get a list of the pilots who flew with the Blue Eagles over the years? Sadly the AAC has taken down the old Blue Eagle site, so you can’t even find details of the last couple of seasons.
Any help would be gratefully received.
Which years do you need, as I have some of the team’s brochures from the ’70s when they had Sioux?
Only Adrian didnt say only one colour was used. ” a range from orange to red”. I’m only seeing tedious rants from one person – along with yet another bludgeoning of your opinion on what museums should do. its getting very childish and doing nothing to enhance the forum so please desist.
Exactly! I can’t add any more to what Tim has said! If Pagen01 can’t see how different plain red paint looks from the correct dayglo/fluorescent colour and insists that ‘red is red’, then we can’t go on banging our heads against a brick wall. Finally, if you want to see published examples of different shades of Dayglo in colour photos, I have just published a book on the Jet Provost in the WARPAINT books series for modellers
http://www.warpaint-books.com/
As mentioned already on this thread, the RAF ‘painted’ dayglo was a ‘Blaze Orange’ in the early ’60s to be replaced by ‘Fire Orange’ dayglo paper strips,but that needs to be another thread if you want to debate that!
To quote an advertising phrase, “The Future’s bright, the future’s ……! “;)
Burgger me, halleluja, there was a red used!! I’ve (and essentially Peter and Milt) been called a lyer across two threads (despite providing pics of two SAR machines showing orange and red/orange finishes) and been quite viscously argued against about this very issue, but it’s ok now, the experts say so!
Wether it is painted flat or in fluo red/orange matters not one jot, the colour is basically right and it’s more durable to finish the aircraft in flat paint.
God speed everyone here who has actually done something about preserving these aircraft.:)
Blimey you ARE a hard nut to crack! Not sure whether you are just plain stubborn in the face of adversity, argumentative or just colour blind! How many photos do we have to post to try and make you see the difference between ‘DayGlo’ and ‘plain red’ paint? Right, here is my oldest Sea Prince slide of WP313 at Odiham during Farnborough week in September 1968,taken when it was newly painted with Dayglo and as you can see it was more ‘fire orange’ when first applied, but still ‘dayglo’ and not plain red and until you can see the difference, you will remain at odds with Tim and me.
Good effort, but for me a wasted one! I hate to see replicas that are not full size, do not have the correct engines (or at least engine cowling shapes) or correct shaped cockpit. A replica has to look the part 100% to be convincing and worthwhile, otherwise you might as well build a KitFox! Just my opinion and others might think this is a good compromise until a real one is made airworthy.
Thanks Adrian. So to recap, the red shade is authentic rather than being due to “lighting”, self evidently as there are photos both indoor and out showing the same deep red dayglo.
No! The only thing authentic is the paint demarcation areas and other markings. DayGlo/Fluorescent paint is affected by the sun and fades quite quickly. I think a compromise could be made by repainting in ‘orange’ rather than ‘red’ paint, but I do understand the problems of maintaining the colour.
I look forward to seeing WP321 take to the air again soon, knowing it is in the wrong colour but looking smart.
Your post seems to indicate that the aircraft, WP321, is no longer airworthy. Has this company ceased trading as well?
In the photo of WP321 in that link, to my mind, there is no doubt as to the colour. Call it Post Office, Cherry, whatever, the manufacturers still agree that it is red. It is the same colour that I recall seeing on the BRNC Chipmunks at Roborough in the early 70s. I do not dispute the fact that it is a dayglo type paint, but it is certainly not orange.
Oh gawd – here we go again! This is exactly the problem we are up against.
WP321 as G-BRFC is currently being made airworthy again (and may well fly this year) by Andrew Dixon at Bournemouth and he has chosen to repaint it ‘red’ – yes plain red, maybe Crown Gloss or Dulux! Andrew has confirmed this is only for durability reasons and not authenticity as the aircraft is not hangared, so when you see it fly, don’t anyone dare say ” there I told you it was ‘red’!” 😉 If enough people keep repainting preserved aircraft in the wrong colours, they will eventually change history unless all the earlier evidence is maintained.
Not a fuorescent orange I hope!:eek:
Sorry but I’m still not convinced that all Sea Princes’ were finished in fluorescent orange, and some of the images posted haven’t helped.
Oh dear, I post pics showing a vast variety of Sea Princes in their final days of service and beyond and still some people are unconvinced!:(
The shade of Dayglo (= flurorecent) paint may have changed over the years(I have slides of Sea Princes with red and orange Dayglo over the years) but they are still Dayglo…and I’ve seen enough of them to know the difference!
It has been clearly stated that the Gatwick Sea Princes have been repainted plain red for practical and durability reasons. I’m satisfied with that and will leave it there having done ‘my bit’ for this thread.
Was at Kemble today to watch this beauty being prepared and it was having its canopy refitted. Apparently the CAA have given authority for the Meteor to carry it’s military serial immediately, so this may be the last pic showing its civil reg. Thought you might also like to see this machine when I first saw it in a dark hangar at Kemble in April 1971 as 7917M coded ‘U’
Well said bms44 and Bob. Although ‘Chox’ has not been very tactful is expressing his views, what he says about Sea Princes not being repainted with ‘red’ instead of DayGlo (not ‘dayglow’ Tim!) is quite correct. It is indeed a myth of the memory or misinterpretation of a colour photo that has perpetuated this and only good colour photographic evidence can dispel this in a positive and friendly manner to prove once and for all that Sea Princes had DayGlo on them (and not red paint) right up to their last day of service. This is no disrespect to those that repainted the two aircraft at the Gatwick Aviation Museum as their interpretation of ‘finding red paint’ was no doubt ‘faded red dayglo paint’ and they just used the word ‘red’ as generic. I am pretty sure that due to the nature of DayGlo, it was decided to repaint them with ‘red’ paint for durability against the elements and a certain ‘artistic licence’ was invoked. To prove that these aircraft wore DayGlo to the end, I herewith provide you with good Kodachrome slides of four different Sea Princes, clearly photographed after being withdrawn from use and before anyone had repainted them! Let’s look at the evidence – here are the two Gatwick Museum examples before repaint – clearly the aircraft are light grey and faded Dayglo orange
Next up is WF118 at Staverton in Sept 80 registered G-DACA – still clearly wearing Dayglo orange
Think this is a one-off? Okay here is WM739 now registered G-TACA also clearly wearing Dayglo orange, although without military TLC starting to look patchy!
Still not convinced? Okay yet another one – this time WF125 on the fire dump at Preddanack – very faded Dayglo and not a sign of any ‘red paint’.
Finally, as if you still need convincing, yet another one in the form of WP321 which flew in the 1980s as G-BRFC – now if that’s not very faded DayGlo, I’ll go and suck an orange! Not a drop of ‘Signal Red’ or ‘Cherry Red’ paint in sight!

The Wessex HU.5s were always “Signal Red”
…oh no they weren’t Lee! QED!

The HU.5s only changed from dayglo to Signal Red just before they were retired.
Then of course, there’s the inevitable problem of photographic reproduction – cameras never capture dayglow properly.
Not quite true Tim, it is not the ‘camera’ that doesn’t capture dayglo properly but the ‘film’.
Anything other than Kodachrome is suspect, but having shot Kodachrome slides since 1966, I am very happy that I have dayglo captured accurately every time.
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.
Quite correct and here is the entire fleet of 750 Squadron put up for the 1975 Culdrose Air Day….all with dayglo!
If anyone is interested in preserving aircraft authentically, then by repainting any aircraft with red paint, when it wore dayglo orange in service is trying to change history and I certainly frown on preservationists that can’t get it right!
Red fabric? Are you sure it’s not genuine Red Baron fokker?
So how many restored DH88 Comets have you seen that are anything other than red?
After fiddling with the newspaper cutting as much as I could, I am convinced I can read “V” as being SAF-TECH6, so presumably XH893.
Putting that together with SteveW’s father’s records, it looks as if V was XH910 1964/65, was also XH961 (w/o 1968) and finally was worn by XH893 in 1968.Laurence
Have a look here and scroll down the ‘XH’ Javelin serials – all the SAFTECH serials are listed http://www.ukserials.com/