American Volunteer Group P-40 Tomahawk colours?

[tonyot]

Sorry to open up a can of worms but does anybody know what the colour of the undersides was?

I know that American Du Pont colours were used, with equivalents of Dark Earth and Dark Green on the upper surfaces and that circular sections of the former were ready to accept the original RAF decal markings (I`ve also heard that decals were also supplied in the crate for the USAAC and maybe even China?) but what was the underside colour used instead of Sky? I originally thought of an equivalent to Sky Grey as used on some P-40E Kittyhawks but the colour photos that I`ve seen don`t seem to match this? Some appear to have a green base colour whilst others are a pale grey similar to Gull Grey and they definitely don`t look to be pale blue as often quoted, but what was the `official' colour and which Humbrol paint is closest to this? I`m also wondering whether Italian Chiarro Azzurro is anywhere near?

Sorry for going on.....and I`d appreciate your comments,

All the best

Tony

[Test Graham]

To me, the best bet appears to be the DuPont colour known as "Sky Type S Grey" which was an attempt to match Sky and has nothing to do with Sky Grey. Nick Millman has published samples of this colour several times: it can be described as a slightly greyer version of Sky with slightly less of the blue-green hue.

[Dave Fleming]

To me, the best bet appears to be the DuPont colour known as "Sky Type S Grey" which was an attempt to match Sky and has nothing to do with Sky Grey. Nick Millman has published samples of this colour several times: it can be described as a slightly greyer version of Sky with slightly less of the blue-green hue.

Nick's blog

http://amair4raf.blogspot.com/

[John]

I'm going to be *very* interested to see which paint Airfix recommend for their new P-40/Hawk 81. I suspect we're going to get told to use a light grey though.

As for a Humbrol match for the Du Pont colour - no idea, but I think you're going to have to look at a mix.

John

[tonyot]

I`d forgotten about Nicks excellent website, jobs a good one and thanks for the heads up and comments,

cheers

Tony O

[Steven Eisenman]

Just remember while the du Pont paints seemed to have been used as the "spec reference", it is not known what Curtiss actually used. There were numerous sources for paint, and Curtiss had its own procurement system. They also were not the best in spec compliance as they did not change to Blue from Black for the "U.S. Army" on the underside for some period after the change was made by the USAAF. Dana Bell has maintained that the color was closer to a light gray.

So we know what was supposed to be done, but we don't know what was done. There was some research that Bruce Archer was involved in that was supposed to shed light on the issue, but have heard noting in a while. Bruce indicated that a gray was used.

Basically, it is what color is a can of worms.

[thx6667]

I'm going to be *very* interested to see which paint Airfix recommend for their new P-40/Hawk 81. I suspect we're going to get told to use a light grey though.

As for a Humbrol match for the Du Pont colour - no idea, but I think you're going to have to look at a mix.

John

I'm guessing it will be an approximate match to a straight from the tin colour.

[John]

I'm guessing it will be an approximate match to a straight from the tin colour.

More than likely!

J

[sean]

humbrol 90 with a touch of white?

[LDSModeller]

Just remember while the du Pont paints seemed to have been used as the "spec reference", it is not known what Curtiss actually used. There were numerous sources for paint, and Curtiss had its own procurement system. They also were not the best in spec compliance as they did not change to Blue from Black for the "U.S. Army" on the underside for some period after the change was made by the USAAF. Dana Bell has maintained that the color was closer to a light gray.

So we know what was supposed to be done, but we don't know what was done. There was some research that Bruce Archer was involved in that was supposed to shed light on the issue, but have heard noting in a while. Bruce indicated that a gray was used.

Basically, it is what color is a can of worms.

Well, actually we DO know Curtiss used DuPont.

British ordered Curtiss P 40E delivered to the RNZAF (Royal New Zealand Air Force) 1942

were delievered in RAF camouflage (Dk Earth/Dk Green/Sky) -US Equivalent paints.

Curtiss issued documents that came with the aircraft, held by the RNZAF Museum for the P 40's, specify the paint

as DuPont, not only for the camo, but also for the roundels too.

Not so much a can of worms

The truth is out there

Regards

Alan

[Jennings Heilig]

I'm going to be *very* interested to see which paint Airfix recommend for their new P-40/Hawk 81. I suspect we're going to get told to use a light grey though.

What Airfix recommends depends only on which reference they choose to believe. They are not world's experts on AVG colors & markings, I assure you. The Osprey book and the Tom Tullis book are, to my mind, the best available references on this subject.

[Test Graham]

Alan, that's what the paperwork says. Now it rather depends whether we believe that:

Curtiss was a reasonably competent aircraft company, with qualified engineers, conscientious inspectors, professional painters and contract lawyers

Or a bunch of chancers manned by incompetent amateurs who just did what they liked and lied their way through it all.

Some modellers appear to think that the US aircraft industry tended more to the latter, and in fairness there are some examples that appear to point that way, but at that period Curtiss appears to be more towards the former. We are not discussing what may have been used by some isolated unit on another continent at the wrong end of a long supply chain, but a prime contractor at home, arguably the leader in the industry at the time. They are not going to specify one brand of paint, then go out and buy hundreds of gallons of another, and not tell anyone.

[Work In Progress]

Good point, Graham. Curtiss was a very classy firm. It's not as if we are talking about Brewster.

[thx6667]

What Airfix recommends depends only on which reference they choose to believe. They are not world's experts on AVG colors & markings, I assure you. The Osprey book and the Tom Tullis book are, to my mind, the best available references on this subject.

Really Jennings? Or alternatively they did consult people who are?

End of the day you have to match to nearest equivalent Humbrol paints, thats just commercial reality. No doubt there will be disagreement - if it were that straightforward threads like this wouldn't rumble on and everyone would be singing from the same hymn sheet.

[Nick Millman]

What Airfix recommends depends only on which reference they choose to believe. They are not world's experts on AVG colors & markings, I assure you. The Osprey book and the Tom Tullis book are, to my mind, the best available references on this subject.

And what modellers recommend on forums depends on which reference they choose to believe too. The Tom Tullis book states: "While the RAF used a greenish-blue color called "Sky Type S" for their fighters, there wasn't any DuPont color that closely matched it." which is not entirely true since DuPont's own published colour card for MAP paint colour standards shows their 71-021 as 'Sky Type S Gray'. DuPont's development of this paint colour reveals that they were matching to the British Sky via "duck egg blue" from the start. As Alan points out there is a quantity of primary documentary evidence for Curtiss referencing DuPont paint colours. Unfortunately there is no hard evidence for a light grey - let alone the precise shade (which for some apparently and fortuitously exactly matches Tamiya Sky Grey).

But one curious and contradictory aspect is that in those expert references specific DuPont colours and designations are happily cited for the AVG Tomahawk top surfaces (even by Tom Tullis), and apparently accepted without demure or the mantra that "Curtiss didn't use DuPont" which the under surface colour always seem to invoke. In the Temperate Land Scheme as specified and as supplied, why the under surface colour should be such an exception is never addressed.

[Steven Eisenman]

Well, actually we DO know Curtiss used DuPont.

British ordered Curtiss P 40E delivered to the RNZAF (Royal New Zealand Air Force) 1942

were delievered in RAF camouflage (Dk Earth/Dk Green/Sky) -US Equivalent paints.

Curtiss issued documents that came with the aircraft, held by the RNZAF Museum for the P 40's, specify the paint

as DuPont, not only for the camo, but also for the roundels too.

Not so much a can of worms

The truth is out there

Regards

Alan

Yes, you may have them for the P-40E, but do you have them for the P-40B/C? That was the question. One does not get an A for answering a different question.

Shame a reproduction of those document cannot be obtained.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Steven Eisenman

[Steven Eisenman]

Alan, that's what the paperwork says. Now it rather depends whether we believe that:

Curtiss was a reasonably competent aircraft company, with qualified engineers, conscientious inspectors, professional painters and contract lawyers

Or a bunch of chancers manned by incompetent amateurs who just did what they liked and lied their way through it all.

Some modellers appear to think that the US aircraft industry tended more to the latter, and in fairness there are some examples that appear to point that way, but at that period Curtiss appears to be more towards the former. We are not discussing what may have been used by some isolated unit on another continent at the wrong end of a long supply chain, but a prime contractor at home, arguably the leader in the industry at the time. They are not going to specify one brand of paint, then go out and buy hundreds of gallons of another, and not tell anyone.

All I can suggest is that you closely read The British Air Commission and Lend-Lease by Meekcoms. A most interesting business study of cultural differences in the approach to production and the inability of the BAC to monitor production.

[Test Graham]

I have read it.

For other subjects, the amount of evidence available would be taken as convincing.

If there is any REAL evidence that these colours were other than required and described, then let's see it.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Graham Boak

[LDSModeller]

Yes, you may have them for the P-40E, but do you have them for the P-40B/C? That was the question. One does not get an A for answering a different question.

Shame a reproduction of those document cannot be obtained.

The RNZAF didn't fly the B/C models, however RNZAF pilots did fly combat missions with the AVG

(The venerable Buffalo) in the defense of Singapore, that's about as close as we got to them.

I think it's important to specify that I am referring to the RAF daytime camouflage scheme used on the B/C/E's

of Dk Earth/Dk Green/Sky.

It's quite reasonable to believe that Curtiss most likely used DuPont on the earlier models (B/C)

that the British Aircraft Production ordered, whilst it's not unreasonable to state that other paint manufactuerers

could have been used too, the P 40E documents stated that DuPont had been used -Why then could this not be true for the earlier models also? Unless you have documented evidence (such as production spec etc) to the contrary, you cannot disprove this line of thought either.

As the British were paying for the B/C/E's, they would have been looking at getting the best

production methods available (even to the point of paint consistancy), just as Curtiss would have been looking at production

methods to maximise profits (which can include using the DuPont line of paints for B/C/E's).

And just so we are clear on the subject, the P 40'E's received by the RNZAF in April 1942 were aircraft redirected

from RAF stock Ex USA. They were not a one off build/special order etc.

As a side note P 40K's were also recieved by the RNZAF in RAF daytime camo from Curtiss, so DuPont would have existed after the E Model.

Yes, it would be nice to have documents for the earlier models.

Edited August 18, 2011 by LDSModeller

[Steven Eisenman]

The RNZAF didn't fly the B/C models, however RNZAF pilots did fly combat missions with the AVG

(The venerable Buffalo) in the defense of Singapore, that's about as close as we got to them.

I think it's important to specify that I am referring to the RAF daytime camouflage scheme used on the B/C/E's

of Dk Earth/Dk Green/Sky.

It's quite reasonable to believe that Curtiss most likely used DuPont on the earlier models (B/C)

that the British Aircraft Production ordered, whilst it's not unreasonable to state that other paint manufactuerers

could have been used too, the P 40E documents stated that DuPont had been used -Why then could this not be true for the earlier models also? Unless you have documented evidence (such as production spec etc) to the contrary, you cannot disprove this line of thought either.

As the British were paying for the B/C/E's, they would have been looking at getting the best

production methods available (even to the point of paint consistancy), just as Curtiss would have been looking at production

methods to maximise profits (which can include using the DuPont line of paints for B/C/E's).

And just so we are clear on the subject, the P 40'E's received by the RNZAF in April 1942 were aircraft redirected

from RAF stock Ex USA. They were not a one off build/special order etc.

As a side note P 40K's were also recieved by the RNZAF in RAF daytime camo from Curtiss, so DuPont would have existed after the E Model.

Yes, it would be nice to have documents for the earlier models.

Could you please clarify the document confirming that Curtiss used the du Pont paints. Totally intrigued. This is the first time I have heard of such a document existing. Was it part of the spec sent to Curtiss or did Curtiss actually confirm what was done?

[John]

I have read it.

For other subjects, the amount of evidence available would be taken as convincing.

If there is any REAL evidence that these colours were other than required and described, then let's see it.

I've read it too, in fact I have a copy on my shelf.

About 18 months ago I asked Steven to cite the particular page or chapter of the book in which he felt Meekoms supported his view. What I got was waffle and obfuscation.

I suspect he doesn't actually have the book he's referring to but if he does I'm still more than happy to read the and comment on the relevant section, once it has been specified.

John

[Steven Eisenman]

I've read it too, in fact I have a copy on my shelf.

About 18 months ago I asked Steven to cite the particular page or chapter of the book in which he felt Meekoms supported his view. What I got was waffle and obfuscation.

I suspect he doesn't actually have the book he's referring to but if he does I'm still more than happy to read the and comment on the relevant section, once it has been specified.

John

Oh please, engage in personal attack. As to the slander, It will be allowed knowing the issues here.

The entire monograph is about the issues. The fact that US production was about raising issues at the end as opposed to the British method of oversight of the product through production. Don't like it, return it is the US approach. Or the fact that there were not enough individuals for British style oversight. Or even to the B-29 the lack of standardization of jugs drove the British batty.

[Nick Millman]

Oh please, engage in personal attack. As to the slander, It will be allowed knowing the issues here.

The entire monograph is about the issues. The fact that US production was about raising issues at the end as opposed to the British method of oversight of the product through production. Don't like it, return it is the US approach. Or the fact that there were not enough individuals for British style oversight. Or even to the B-29 the lack of standardization of jugs drove the British batty.

Even if it is about the issues any bearing on specific Curtiss Tomahawk colours is tenuous at best. So Curtiss might not have followed specs - and they might have too - that does not take us to an unequivocal light grey -or even a can of worms. The concept that the specs say one thing and the manufacturer might have done another could be applied to any manufacturer and aircraft type. It is an entirely fatuous and negative argument that provides no basis for any conclusion. I can see the attraction of that for some as it allows for endless speculation and opinion about the possible whilst the evidence for the probable is awarded only equal or more usually less important billing.

As to the Curtiss documentation, the same or similar was sent to their 'sister firm' at Hamble, together with paint swatches marked with the DuPont numbers and I have mentioned this before several times. The process of US manufacturers providing details of the paints actually applied and even their pigment compositions has been documented by Ian Huntley. Curtiss were informing Hamble of the colours necessary to match to for repairs - in other words the information was USA to UK. Alan's evidence from NZ suggests a similar or identical procedure and David Muir records the same thing in respect of North American Mustangs where the maintenance manuals specify precisely the colours applied - and they are not "light grey". In addition the Curtiss factory paint diagrams for the P-40E, as reproduced in Dana Bell's own 'Export Colors', show DuPont numbers and colour names. The under surface colour number is defaced (!) but it is referred to as 'Sky Type S' and since all the other numbers are DuPont we come back to the earlier point about why the under surface paint should have been an exception.

On the AVG forum in a similar discussion to this one Terrill Clements (cited by Jennings as an expert) wrote:-

"The factory paint job was brown and green on the top, and the bottoms were light gray with a greenish/blue cast. All the evidence I have seen indicates that this was indeed the colour scheme of the Tomahawks supplied to the AVG. (There were likely a few slight one-off exceptions as Curtiss put together the shipments with the components at hand). As you indicate, the planes were in most cases from the same production lines. I won't go into the tedious details, but the colors used were Curtiss' attempt to match the colors specified for RAF Day Fighters in 1940-41, but NOT exact matches."

And another correspondent commented:-

"Although I cannot vouch for the H81 aircraft sent to China, I do have information on the H81 aircraft that went to the RAF Sqdns in the Desert. The aircraft delivered in the Desert were originally painted Brown and Green with a grey-ish green colour underneath (hard to work out if grey or a close match to duckegg green). This is mentioned in Sqdn ORB's (Operational Record Books)."

A "grey-ish green" does not sound very much like a light grey but probably could be applicable to Sky and DuPont's 71-021.

You mentioned that Dana Bell maintains the colour was a light grey. Actually, in 'Export Colors' he wrote:-

"Curtiss appears to have used Sky Grey, Sky Blue and Sky at different points in P-40 production".

Although the evidence for that is not apparent.

None of the contemporaneous British observers and chroniclers (such as MJF Bowyer) record a light grey under surface seen on Tomahawks and there is more to come on this including some very detailed reports about Army Co-Op aircraft. There is also a very high quality and close-up IWM colour photograph of a Tomahawk in desert colours where on the original print the undersurface Azure paint can be seen worn away in parts to reveal underneath it a pale, pastel blue-green somewhat stronger than the swatch of 71-021 but definitely not a "light grey".

AVG members are reported to have described a light grey but two factors qualify this:-

1. The fact that many people might perceive and describe 71-021 as a "light grey" anyway

2. The tendency, proven in experiments by South African aviation artist Ron Belling, for Sky-type paints to oxidise and chalk towards a light grey. He further comments about these colours as follows:-

"The underside Sky (of a Corsair) also lost some of its initial cleanness to take on the appearance of a pale dirty grey.";

"In additional the tonal weakness of the Yellow constituent (of Sky) was easily broken down by ultra-violet light, whereas the other pigments remained more intact, in the form of a pale, dirty grey with a hint of Sky".;

"Unaffected Sky, removed from a Fairey Swordfish (HS256), matches the current BS 210, wartime Sky and FS Sky. Seen together with a piece of underside skinning from a Kittyhawk (No.5106) which was also finished in FS Sky (a rarity among SAAF Kittyhawks) both conform to official standards, thus proving that the original colours were of a high production standard."; and

"Their (Hawker Furies) Sky undersides were a true representation of the official colour, with no fading or discolouration, and were nothing like the washed-out hues seen during the war."

Most colour photographs of AVG Tomahawks are consistent with this and there are as many that show what appear to be Sky-type colours as "light grey".

Even if the idea that Curtiss applied other non-standard paint colours and then lied about them is accepted as a possibility the precise appearance of those colours is currently un-evidenced. But it flies in the face of what is known. Next time you wax lyrical about Luftwaffe farbton-this or farbton-that at Hyperscale I look forward to seeing your qualifier that although these colours were specified and documented they might not have been actually applied.

(Apologies to others for the long and largely repetitive (of information elsewhere) post).

[Steven Eisenman]

(Apologies to others for the long and largely repetitive (of information elsewhere) post).

Just a point Nick, have you seen me advocating for the light gray in quite a while? I have merely taken the position that there is debate, that it was not Sky as we usually know it and I do point out the light greenish gray. But being said, and without having to go back to my notes, even that greenish gray gets slippery. IIRC, there was also a bluish aspect mentioned.

As for the corsairs, are you saying it was du Pont Sky Type S Gray, ANA 610 which would be the du Pont, or true British Sky Type S?

BTW, the P-61 specs called for two primer coats on surfaces, Northorp saved a lot of cash when it applied none.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Steven Eisenman

[LDSModeller]

Could you please clarify the document confirming that Curtiss used the du Pont paints. Totally intrigued. This is the first time I have heard of such a document existing. Was it part of the spec sent to Curtiss or did Curtiss actually confirm what was done?

The documents held by the RNZAF Museum are the 'Official Curtiss Aircraft Drawings" (which came with aircraft)

which give the paint types eg Dk Earth/ Dk Green/Sky etc and lists that the paint is DuPont

and the DuPont number with it

The Museum also has the Curtiss P 40E maintenace and erection manual which gives paint types

and numbers also.

Another thing I had totally forgotten about, is another E-mail from the 'Keeper

Of Records" (I found while searching for the original E-mail of above) at the museum.

He mentioned that there is photographic evidence of a P 40E wing held/had been held by a well known gent

in the Kiwi Aviation world (he has some complete examples of P 40N*/ Mosguito and aircraft parts etc all in

original paint schemes), this P 40E wing is in original US Equvalent colours which has the

lower section in a blueish colour.

(* This P 40N is the third Gloria Lyons)

(Unfortunately at the time, I didn't further query the photographic evidence (who/where),

though I have no reason to doubt the truth of his comments)

Further to my above comments after checking with other people I know who have met this gent:

This gent John Smith (is a real character)/his aircraft live in a place called Mapua in New Zealand.

John is quite private person (apparently) and does not allow photos of his collection to be published, to protect his privacy

and stop people hounding him to on sell his collection.

Kind regards

Alan