Spitfire Camo demarcation. . .

[Nate]

Apologies if this has already been asked, but I couldn't find it via search. How was the camo applied? Should it be airbrushed, soft-masked, or hard masked?

I seem to vaguely recall there were rubber mats that had the pattern and they sprayed around it, but I have no idea where I heard that.

TIA

[agboak]

The real thing had 1 inch overspray, so not completely hard, but you try getting a 1/72 inc (or whatever) overspray on your model. Soft oversprays look completely wrong.

[Nate]

The real thing had 1 inch overspray, so not completely hard, but you try getting a 1/72 inc (or whatever) overspray on your model. Soft oversprays look completely wrong.

Do you doubt my airbrushing skills?

[Jennings]

Probably the best way to replicate it in 1/72 (or any other scale for that matter) is to use paper masks held slightly proud of the surface using whatever method works for you. It gives a very tight overspray, and looks much better than hard masking.

J

[kellyF15]

I had always heard the rubber mat thing to, but I have nothing to back that up.

[Nate]

I'm glad I didn't totally make it up then . . .

and thanks for the info guys!

[John Thompson]

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=29585

John

[Nate]

Brilliant! Thank you!

[The Loggie]

Rubber mats? Did they get paint build-up like we do with tape. Or did they know how to avoid it - like we do.

George, out............................

[Stona]

I'd say this is pretty typical. I do it with a hard edge. I can't replicate any overspray in scale despite twenty odd years of trying!

Steve

[Edgar]

Rubber mats? Did they get paint build-up like we do with tape. Or did they know how to avoid it - like we do.

George, out............................

Wouldn't make any difference; they weren't bothered with how aesthetically pleasing it was, just in keeping drag to a minimum. That was achieved by keeping rough-textured over- (or, more often, under-) spray out of the equation. Freehand spraying was tried, with the rough edges sanded smooth, but they found that inexperienced workers tended to knock the paint off rivet heads, necessitating a respray, with all the delay that entailed.

Edgar

[Brad-M]

If mats were used, I find it very funny that no pictures/photos appear to be available. Also, where Spits not repainted in areas that the camo didn't really apply, leaving a slightly feathered edge? Did every single MU have the mats, and travelled with them everytime they moved? Sorry, but until I see a photo or a document ordering the use of said mats, I will not believe that they existed. Can you imagine a Lancaster bomber being painted with the use of mats, they must have been massive in size. Or are we talking about single seat fighters only here? Finally, not every single Spitfire phot that I have or have seen has the same spray pattern or the same demarcation for that matter, so there must have been all kinds of allowances between 1/2" - 2/3" of overspray. Again, sorry to be so skeptical on this one, but I am thinking chalk and freehand spraying was the order of the day.

Cheers

Brad

Edited July 15, 2009 by Brad-M

[Edgar]

While scepticism when dealing with politicians (and their ilk) is to be applauded, refusal to accept eyewitness statements runs counter to all of the accepted procedures of a court of law. Can you imagine a judge refusing to accept eyewitness statements? So far, I've found an ex-IPMS president who actually used these "non-existent" mats, plus 3 modellers who saw them being used (in different locations,) a (Westland) historian who's verified their use, and several anecdotal reports from users.

Of course Lancasters were very large, but, if you look at a copy of "The Royal Air Force of World War Two in Colour," you'll find a photo of pre-painted fuselage sections waiting for assembly. The Lancaster fuselage consisted of three sections, which were painted before assembly, and the joins were covered with tape, which was touched up, by hand, afterwards. This is why there are so many arguments about the Lancaster's interior colour; the front section was painted black, inside, while the other two were green.

Talk of a 1" overspray is starting from the wrong end; 1" was the maximum permitted overspray, it wasn't the aimed-for criterion. That criterion was no overspray, at all, but mats are not going to consistently lay flat against a curved surface, hence the allowance.

M.U.s didn't move around; the aircraft went to them. As an example, No.1 M.U. was formed, as a Repair Depot, 9-4-38, at Kidbrooke, and remained there until being disbanded 15-2-47. 2 M.U was an Ammunition Depot, 3 M.U. was a Universal Equipment Depot, 4 M.U. was another Repair Depot, and was set up at Ickenham, Ruislip 6-3-39 (with a sub-site at Stanmore Park from 1-11-39) and stayed there until 1-5-57. Very often, aircraft were dismantled and taken to the depots on Queen Mary trailers. We had a unit, here in High Wycombe (on the High Street,) which repaired, re-covered, and repainted Wellington fuselages, in a former garage.

Strangely enough, and right on cue, I've just been talking to a friend, who said that a former colleague tried to find out about de Havilland's methods, and was told (by a former dH employee) that they, too, used mats.

Now, we have the vexed question of "no photographs," yet there is, at least, one, of P-40s being painted, using mats. This raises the question; why would an American company use a method, completely at variance with their usual practices, unless they were asked to do so? And, if they were asked to use the mats, is it likely that British manufacturers wouldn't have used them?

A friend of mine has spent his entire life as a French polisher, and sprayer, of furniture, mainly using cellulose for the latter. One day, in the 1960s, a film unit came to his factory, and the producer asked if she could photograph him spraying furniture. "Only if you're prepared to explain to his widow." the foreman replied. 1940s-era lighting/flash equipment is not something I would have fancied around the atmosphere in a spraybooth.

It's rather disappointing to spend so much time, travelling round this country, talking to the dwindling number of people who did this work, only to have the evidence dismissed, but, of course, I can't make you believe it, so there's little point in continuing this.

Edgar

[Jennings]

I really hate to be a fly in the ointment, but if they used rubber mats on things as big as Lancasters (even if they were built in sections, the sections are still huge):

1. Those rubber mats would have to be enormously heavy, bulky, and difficult to move, store, and position properly, even on something the size of a Spitfire

2. What did they do to remove the paint build-up on the mats? At some point it would render them virtually unusable there would be so much paint on them

3. How do you account for the myriad small, subtle differences in the patterns between different aircraft? Not accountable by simple shifting of the mat, but a subtly different demarcation pattern.

4. Why, among ALLLLLL the wartime photos of airplanes being built and painted, is there not one single photo of anyone (except Curtiss, in one photo I've seen) using rubber mats? Okay, there are people who *say* they used rubber mats, but I've personally spoken with a former B-17 crew member who swore to me that his airplane was OD/NG, when I've got a photo that shows it was natural metal (and came as such from the factory). Equally reputable eyewitnesses have reported all kinds of things that never happened. Not to cast aspersions on anyone, but the human brain has been proven time and again to be the least reliable storage medium for facts. Any cop or lawyer will tell you that an eyewitness is the least reliable way to determine what happened in any given circumstance.

I just find it hard to believe that a few 'eyewitness' accounts make it 100% certain that aircraft builders used gigantic rubber mats to paint camouflage when there are photos showing chalked lines applied by hand. You'd surely think there would be *some* photographic evidence if such a thing actually happened, wouldn't you??

If someone gave me a spray gun and told me to camouflage a Lancaster (or parts thereof), I guarantee I'd be able to look at a drawing, chalk the pattern on it, and have it sprayed, assembled, and out the door *LONG* before someone doing the same thing using a bunch of rubber mats could. It just doesn't make sense from an expediency standpoint. The object was to get them out the door.

J

[Brad-M]

Hi Edgar,

I appreciate your knowledge and vast array of contacts in this area, and benefited on several occassions from you and the help you have provided me. I didn't know that the MU's were stationary units, I would have thought that there would have been MU's that moved from the UK to mainland Europe as we moved towards the conquest of Germany. It just seems difficult to comprehend that people would spend the time in using mats, when chalk and paint would have been/seem quicker.

Thanks

Brad

[Edgar]

1. Those rubber mats would have to be enormously heavy, bulky, and difficult to move, store, and position properly, even on something the size of a Spitfire

2. What did they do to remove the paint build-up on the mats? At some point it would render them virtually unusable there would be so much paint on them

3. How do you account for the myriad small, subtle differences in the patterns between different aircraft? Not accountable by simple shifting of the mat, but a subtly different demarcation pattern.

4. Why, among ALLLLLL the wartime photos of airplanes being built and painted, is there not one single photo of anyone (except Curtiss, in one photo I've seen) using rubber mats? Okay, there are people who *say* they used rubber mats. Equally reputable eyewitnesses have reported all kinds of things that never happened. Not to cast aspersions on anyone, but the human brain has been proven time and again to be the least reliable storage medium for facts.

I just find it hard to believe that a few 'eyewitness' accounts make it 100% certain that aircraft builders used gigantic rubber mats to paint camouflage when there are photos showing chalked lines applied by hand. You'd surely think there would be *some* photographic evidence if such a thing actually happened, wouldn't you??

If someone gave me a spray gun and told me to camouflage a Lancaster (or parts thereof), I guarantee I'd be able to look at a drawing, chalk the pattern on it, and have it sprayed, assembled, and out the door *LONG* before someone doing the same thing using a bunch of rubber mats could. It just doesn't make sense from an expediency standpoint. The object was to get them out the door.

J

1/. They were bloody heavy, often needing two men to lift them.

2/. Cellulose thinners. When mats eventually became unusable, they were often used as templates to cut the next, which could easily account for slight variations.

3/. The main pattern was sent to the factories, with certain (but not all) dimensions marked, to a fraction of an inch, where the mats had to be set, so that the designs matched where it was necessary. The actual minutiae of the shapes were left to the factories' interpretation, and this can be seen in quite marked differences between CB and Supermarine-built Spitfires, although the basic pattern remained constant, and each factory's production matched. There is little point in thinking along the lines of the production facilities in the States; production was scattered all over the country, with painting being done while aircraft were still in component parts. It wouldn't be much help if one man's chalked line ended at one point on the wing, and another's started at a different point on the fuselage; the resultant delay, while the lines were matched, wouldn't help get the airframe out of the door, and what would happen, on a Squadron, if a replacement wing was found to be way out?

I have no doubt, with your modeller's expertise, and years of experience, painting a Lancaster would be a breeze (and I'm not being sarcastic,) but could you do it, to the same total accuracy, on 12-hour shifts, during a 6-day week, with, maybe, only 14 days off each year? And could management trust the nightshift sprayer to be just as accurate? Using a spraygun was a completely new experience for the vast majority of the sort of workforce that we had available in 1940, with the experienced hands only having sprayed cars a single colour, and, during his researches, Paul Lucas found that inexperienced workers were being over-enthusiastic in rubbing down roughly-sprayed areas, causing paint to be scrubbed off rivet heads, therefore needing a (time-consuming) repaint.

I find the comment about eyewitnesses rather specious; if you've experienced the physical effort of lugging a heavy rubber mat around, the memory's likely to stay with you. Also, don't go thinking along the lines of sheets of solid rubber; Bill Matthews's description of them sounds more like rubberised horsehair, not the sort of sheets we're used to seeing as carpet underlay, and nowhere near as heavy. Also, there were not just "a few" eyewitness accounts; the information was generally known, here, and openly talked about; there was never any thought that, 60 years on, there might be a whole new breed of modellers unwilling to believe it.

Let's be clear about this; if a modeller wants to paint his model with a scale overspray of 6", or more, it's his model to do with as he pleases, and good luck to him. I just wish that modellers wouldn't ask for information, then choose to refuse to believe it.

Edgar

Edited July 16, 2009 by Edgar

[Grant in West Oz]

1/. They were bloody heavy, often needing two men to lift them.

2/. Cellulose thinners. When mats eventually became unusable, they were often used as templates to cut the next, which could easily account for slight variations.

3/. The main pattern was sent to the factories, with certain (but not all) dimensions marked, to a fraction of an inch, where the mats had to be set, so that the designs matched where it was necessary. The actual minutiae of the shapes were left to the factories' interpretation, and this can be seen in quite marked differences between CB and Supermarine-built Spitfires, although the basic pattern remained constant,

<snip>

Let's be clear about this; if a modeller wants to paint his model with a scale overspray of 6", or more, it's his model to do with as he pleases, and good luck to him. I just wish that modellers wouldn't ask for information, then choose to refuse to believe it.

Edgar

Hmmm.

1/ Rubber 1121kg/cu.m. Yes, very heavy. I'd be using overhead handling gear if there were only 2 men on the job.

2/ What did they do with that soiled, spoiled, contaminated strategic import? Toss it in land fill? where is it now?

If I was to be tasked with providing soft masks (as opposed to Curtiss' plywood wing masks) I'd be hiring sail makers to stitch rope into the borders of canvas patterns. Wash the paint out and allow to dry. Back in use tomorrow.

3/ I'd been told on model forums by 'rubber mask defenders' that military supervisors were right martinets when it came to camo edges. Yet the factories were staffed primarily by civilian labour, with a large number of women on the workforce. Very few servicemen at all.

As far as I can tell, given the complete lack of evidence, the use of masks is an ephemeral anecdote. None used in Australia, even tho' we're thousands of sea miles closer to rubber growing climates. I use rubber backed curtain material for masks when making Spitfire models.

Patterns made from official drawings. Free for the asking. PM me, let me know what scale you require.

Mk.I Spittie with soft edge camo.

At odds with many preconceptions, this 1939 'plane has non-hard edged camo, is approaching filthy and quite knocked about in spite of supposed rigid maintenance routines.

Regards,

G

[agboak]

No evidence? Ephemeral anecdotes? I don't accept the "memory tricks" - take the B-17 camouflage described. The informant there will have seen a lot of B-17s in OD/NG, and is merely confused about which ones. If the mats did not exist, how come so many people from diverse sources all invented the same thing? I know the human imagination is a wonderful thing, but not that impressive.

Just how many photographs were taken inside paint shops during WW2? Not many in the UK, where photographic film was a rare resource. Just who is going to be interested anyway? Precious film was used where interesting subjects were to be found.

And you don't think that civilian foremen can be martinets? You've never worked on a shop floor. (Although everyone in my experience was a true gentleman.....just in case they are reading this.)

Personally, I don't understand the argument that the demarcation lines are different from one aircraft to another. Yes, you can find examples like that, but the vast majority of factory photos show aircraft built to effectively identical patterns over years of production. (What happened after it left the factory may be another matter.) It isn't possible to achieve that without strong control, as described.

Nor am I convinced that the rubber mats weren't sometimes used just to mark out a chalk line. In which case their life would be fairly long.

As for being consumable: yes. So? This is war, and mass production. As for waste disposal: the total material is many factors short of that used for tyres, but there's not exactly vast piles of used WW2 tyres about. And they were rather more useful in odd jobs than rubber sheets cut to funny patterns.

Sorry, but from this side of the ocean there does seem to be some kind of collective blindspot: either the diverse sources are all liars or mats really were used. Not necessarily on every aircraft - possibly not on Lancasters, as these seem to be used as some kind of iconic guidance - but by Occam's Razor alone, the evidence for their use outweighs the incredulity of the alternative.

[Grant in West Oz]

What? No historians active in Britain during the war?

There was an official war artists and photography section in Britain during the unpleasantness. Documents exist of all sort of manufacture and science. But not one photo of men at the endeavour of accurately laying thumping great slabs of rubberised material over newly primed metal and fabric.

I know there are photos of ladies and gentlemen free-hand painting various pieces of equipment including aeroplanes. They feature in books and documentary films from time to time. Yet not a glimpse of a pile of paint-stained tarp like materials being aired, cleaned or even cut. There must have been a drawing. Everything that's made has a standard and a drawing. Even a drawing of something which was never commissioned would be a first in this debate.

Forgive me for doubting the veracity of this point, but I do know several older folk who worked in aircraft production in your country as well as the USA and my country and none have ever heard of such a thing. Though the American knew of plywood screens to define patterns on British ordered aircraft, but had no personal contact with them despite being on Hudson production. We Australians were slavish followers of British practice, but there's no mention of anything other than dead reckoning for painting in CAC or DAP production guidelines or histories.

Delve on guys, you are at the source. Please prove me wrong. I won't be disappointed.

G

[agboak]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are photos of people spraying to a line (well, one on a Lancaster, to my knowledge), but no photos of anyone drawing a chalk line. No photos, so it isn't true? Do you really believe that every single aspect of aircraft production was photographed by somebody, somewhere? I find that doubtful, to say the least. In my forty years in the industry, not a single photo was taken of any of my workplaces during my time there. However, the photographs that have been published are only a selection of those surviving, which were in turn only a selection of those taken, so there's always a chance that something will turn up.

You may not have met people who encountered such mats, neither have I (at least not to talk to on about the subject) but others have. Go back and reread Edgar's posting.

I believe that "the mats" have met acceptable standards of evidence: people, as they say, have been hung on less.

[Grant in West Oz]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are photos of people spraying to a line (well, one on a Lancaster, to my knowledge), but no photos of anyone drawing a chalk line. No photos, so it isn't true? Do you really believe that every single aspect of aircraft production was photographed by somebody, somewhere? I find that doubtful, to say the least. In my forty years in the industry, not a single photo was taken of any of my workplaces during my time there. However, the photographs that have been published are only a selection of those surviving, which were in turn only a selection of those taken, so there's always a chance that something will turn up.

You may not have met people who encountered such mats, neither have I (at least not to talk to on about the subject) but others have. Go back and reread Edgar's posting.

I believe that "the mats" have met acceptable standards of evidence: people, as they say, have been hung on less.

My location, precludes a visit to any of the archives readily available to you good self, except on a 'holiday of a lifetime' budget.

The 'chalker' well may be another annecdote told by a person who may well have been feeling a bit browbeaten by his trainer. imo 17 year olds then weren't any sharper than now. I know my generation, 1950, wasn't.

Perhaps my drafting and building life is more thorough at keeping records for reference, contractural and aesthetic reasons than your industry. Legal and insurance reasons feature quite highly in our record keeping. You are right about the fragment photo history being lost everytime there's a bulk rubbish removal. The whole picture may never bee seen. I hope nothing enters into the picture that ought not be there.

The nearest I've seen to mats are street line painting stencils. even as cardboard they're awkward. Timber was awful. These days spraying cuts the mustard. Look next time you cross the road.

As you say, innocent men have been hanged on hearsay.

G

Edited July 16, 2009 by Grant in West Oz

[Edgar]

I'd like, if I may, to return to this "faulty human memory" bee, in certain bonnets. The police deal, mostly, with one-off incidents, maybe only a few seconds in length, and dramatic, even traumatic, for any onlooker. Here, we're talking about the daily slog of a full-time job, day after day (often spreading over several years,) continually using the same methods, materials, and tools. Hardly comparing like with like, is it? I've recently been told of two instances of the use of this "fallible" memory. A fellow IPMS member visited a preservation facility, and found two of the staff having an animated conversation (aka argument) about the Mark of a Merlin engine they'd received. Ian said that his mother-in-law had worked on Merlins throughout the war, and would they like her to have a look at it? Answered with a "yes," he took her along, and her first words, as she walked through the door, were "That's a Packard," and, even though she hadn't touched, or seen, one for 40 years, she was right. A local factory owner flew Wellingtons and Liberators during the war, and, during the 1980s, it was decided to make a documentary about his life, so they went to Wellington "R-for-Robert," and sat him in the pilot's seat. His hands started going over various controls and knobs, and, eventually, the interviewer said "Mr. Ercolani, are you alright?" Startled, he looked up, and said "Oh, sorry, I'd just gone back 45 years, and was going through the pre-flight checks, without giving it a thought."

The information about the mats became generally known in the 1960/70s; in 1976 I attended a symposium, at which Jeffrey Quill, Rod Banks, Johnnie Johnson, Hugh Dundas, Douglas Bader, Bob Stanford Tuck, Philip Lucas told us about their experiences. If I'm to disbelieve what ordinary working-class factory workers have told me, shouldn't we, also, disbelieve what those men told us? They were, by then, of a similar age, so their memories would have been just as suspect.

As for needing lifting equipment, please, spare me. As a carpet fitter, I regularly carried rolls of underlay 50' x 4'6", in pairs, on my shoulders, or 50' x 12' pieces of rubber-backed carpet. Check any of the laid-down patterns, and you won't find any mats that would have been anywhere near those dimensions.

Then there's the lack of any evidence, even photographic. Do you believe that, during wartime restrictions, it was possible to just waltz into a factory, and take photos? Nowadays, maybe, but then, at the very least, you'd have been hauled off to the police station, suspected of spying. During the Battle of Britain, cameras were banned on RAF stations, and anyone, caught using one, went straight onto the charge sheet. Here, in High Wycombe, they built Mosquitoes, with the fuselage halves constructed over concrete moulds. Not one piece of those moulds now exists, so what chance that some pieces of rubber remain?

It's possible that, somewhere in the Air Ministry Orders, lurks an instruction on how to paint aircraft, if someone has the time, and patience, to plough through them. Each year's set of AMOs has its own file, some several inches thick, often with over 1000 orders, containing such gems as who qualifies to own a RAF bicycle, or how much underwear will be issued to each WAAF. I reckon that anyone would need to start around the time of the Munich Crisis, and go from there. But then, of course, AMOs were Service orders, so, if the instruction went to civilian factories, perhaps another department, entirely, was involved.

It's far too easy to employ modern thinking to what happened 60+ years ago. All records would have been on paper, some of very questionable quality, and the loss of a government contract, or, worse, closure of the factory, would not have been conducive to hanging on to records (and keeping them where?) Bonfires would have been the order of the day, or the local dump. My last company, in 2000, dumped their entire stock of pre-1990 job cards, and I doubt that they're alone.

Not very long ago, there was a story, in "Aeroplane Monthly," of how a Supermarine employee saw a file sticking out of a soon-to-be-dumped filing cabinet, and found that it contained details of K5054, so he pinched it, for old times sake. A former IPMS president, and Airfix Magazine editor, died suddenly, and his material, including irreplaceable 1944/5 photos with 2nd TAF, was earmarked for the IPMS library. The local council turned up, and took the wrong pallet to the local tip, so all of his stuff was lost.

Edgar

[agboak]

Grant: will a Supermarine drawing calling for the creation of stencil mats satisfy you?

http://www.skonk.net/main.php?g2_view=core..._serialNumber=2

My thanks to TonyT on http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=4

Edit. In a similar thread on Britmodeller, "sonofjim" relates how his grandmother used to make them during the war. More unsupported anecdotes, of course.

Edited July 16, 2009 by agboak

[Edgar]

Then there's this one; had it all the time, and never read the small print (there's a lesson in there, somewhere.) This is drawing 33884 (or 64) sheet G, and carries the A & B schemes designed for the Portuguese Mk.I delivery. TonyT's drawing is for the Mk.21, so the same instruction went from the first aircraft, in WWII, to the last.

Edgar

[Grant in West Oz]

Grant: will a Supermarine drawing calling for the creation of stencil mats satisfy you?

http://www.skonk.net/main.php?g2_view=core..._serialNumber=2

My thanks to TonyT on http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=4

Edit. In a similar thread on Britmodeller, "sonofjim" relates how his grandmother used to make them during the war. More unsupported anecdotes, of course.

That's great agboak! I have a similar plan for a single stage Spitfire.

Verbatin I quote 'im.

"STENCIL MATS TO BE MADE APPROXIMATELY TO THE

SCHEME SHOWN

1 FOOT SQUARES HAVE BEEN DRAWN TO GIVE THE

NECESSARY GUIDANCE FOR LAYING OFF COLOUR CONTOURS"

A stencil is one thing, a mask is something else.

I'll believe the stencils were chalking guides made to these patterns. e.g. perforated kraft paper over which chalk or pounce was dusted to create a dotted line not inscribed onto an underlying surface. A drawn line would make a mark in fresh paint, dusting wouldn't. But that's not what you're arguing.

The mention of 'LAYING OFF' is a painters term meaning a division between colours, indicating (to me) free-hand spraying. There's a different terminology for masking.

Each sub contractor was responsible for finishing their assemblies before delivery to the assembly plant. That is why these plans were made, so APPROXIMATE patterns were being fitted to other APPROXIMATELY painted components. As far as I know, it was the wing and tailplane root fairings which 'joined' the flight surface and fuselage patterns. I've seen official photos of women free-hand painting these areas outdoors at CB and Supermarine to MATCH the schemes on the nearly finished airframe.

We're getting closer, but still not standing on firm ground over this matter. I look forward to future installments.

G