AK139 displays the TLS but appears to have an over-painted or 'censored'
Sky fuselage band and no codes showing. It served with 241, 268 and 231
Sqns before flying into the ground at Saintfield, County Down on 3 Jul
1942. (Note similarity in tone of spinner and under surface colour in this view.)
Following the December 1940 Fighter Command decision to reject the Tomahawk as a fighter aircraft for the European theatre, in January 1941 the Air Staff decided to trial the aircraft in a single Army Co-operation squadron with a view to eventually re-equipping three Lysander squadrons with the type. Army Co-operation Command had been seeking a replacement for the Lysander and had considered both the Hurricane and the Blenheim. The majority of the Tomahawk contract deliveries would be sent to the ME but the reality was that their numbers in the UK exceeded the shipping space available for consignment and the Air Staff considered the type suitable for the Army Co-operation role "as the latest American fighter type with a speed of 350 mph".
Soviet Tomahawk in TLS with Sky fuselage band and over-painted roundels.
In the late summer of 1941 the first batches of Tomahawks from RAF stocks also began to be shipped to the Soviet Union. The first 47 Tomahawk IIBs arrived in September 1941. The first arrivals were assembled by an RAF unit at Yagodnik airfield outside Archangel and were flight-tested by two American pilots attached to the RAF as 'combat observers' - Lts Zemke (subsequently the USAAF 56th FG commander) and Alison who also instructed Soviet pilots in their operation. The first two Tomahawks assembled, AK300 and AK242 were formally accepted by the Soviets on 5 October 1941. Other deliveries were AH971, AH974 to AH985, AH987 and AH994. Their service record is beyond the scope of this resource but AH975 (shown above) was photographed after delivery, still wearing RAF TLS with a Sky fuselage band, dark spinner (possibly re-painted) and the upper surface RAF roundels overpainted in a dark colour (possibly dark green) with red stars superimposed. In the photographs the overpainting appears to be darker and glossier than the original Dark Green of the TLS. The undersurface roundels had also been painted out in a glossier paint than the original under surface paint, which in some photos appears lighter and in others darker, with red stars applied over them. The whole fin (and RAF fin flash) appears to have been re-painted in a dark colour more closely matching the original camouflage and the rudder and ailerons re-doped in a slightly lighter colour. The Soviet photographs of the aircraft are sufficiently clear to show that the Sky fuselage band appears lighter than the under surface paint colour, even allowing for the effect of shadow.
In-flight view of AH925. Sky spinner and fuselage band appear paler than under
surface colour as described by M J F Bowyer. Note pattern, variegation and weathering of upper
surface paint. Stencil under oil filler spout in rear glazing reads "For oil use Shell grade 170"
In some photographs the RAF and Soviet Tomahawk under surfaces appear pale and bright, in others significantly darker. It would be convenient to be able to demarcate this appearance to early and later serials to conjecture some significant shift in painting practice but unfortunately it doesn't work out like that. The appearance is haphazard and the same aircraft can also appear differently in different photographs. Attempting to define colours from monochrome tones is fraught with difficulty because tones are so dependent on the type and direction of illumination when the photograph was taken as explained in the last blog post. Early Tomahawk deliveries were manufactured at a time when Sky was only just being introduced in the TLS for fighters and was being described as 'duck egg blue' to American manufacturers. This might explain the near to MAP Sky Blue colours recorded on some Tomahawks (and other US types), but in reality any variance could just be due to production batch differences and/or photographic tones.
One of the issues with the insistence that the paint applied to the under surfaces of AVG (ex-RAF) Tomahawks matched US Aircraft Grey is that this was never a camouflage paint colour but instead a gloss paint colour. The evolution of US paint colour standards shows it first appearing as ANA 512 in ANA 166 of 4 Dec 1943 so how it could have been deliberately chosen as a substitute colour standard for duck egg blue, Sky or even Sky Grey in 1940/41 is beyond comprehension. ANA 512 Aircraft Gray became 1645 in TT-C-595 of 1950 but was then replaced by FS 16473 (note 16473 - gloss). The previous Light Gray (125 in Bulletin 3-1 Revised of 21 April 1943) did not appear in ANA Bulletin 166 but was superceded by 1750 in TT-C-595 of 1950 and replaced in turn by FS 13578 in FS 595 of March 1956. The devil is always in the detail and the hypotheses so assuredly promoted by some often overlook or ignore the inconvenient but ever important chronology. Even were it to be accepted that this colour match is based only on the appearance of the Tomahawk under surface paint in colour photographs (rather than an assertion that Aircraft Gray paint was actually used) it is probably worth citing Robert D Archer's admonition in his introduction to the US paint colour standards in the mighty 'USAAF Markings and Camouflage 1941-1947' (Schiffer, 1997):-
"Color photographs reproduced with varying degrees of accuracy in various books and magazines during the last fifty years have been offered as evidence of variations in USAAF standard colours. These variations are mainly due to indifferent color separations and/or variation in inks used in the color printing process. The author has not found any evidence of such color variations in viewing original USAAF color material. Variations from regulation paint schemes and colors did exist in the field, particularly in the early days of the Pacific war theater, but this was under dire combat conditions and decidedly not the norm for the USAAF."
The Tomahawk, it will be remembered, was being painted for the RAF well before the USA was in the war - or indeed applying camouflage to its own aeroplanes. But even in respect of the much touted idea that the US adopted a more freewheeling approach to the subject of specifications and paint colours there is something pertinent from Mr Archer:-
"Finally, a word of caution; do not assume that the USAAF was prepared to accept batches of paint that did not meet its standard color requirements. For example, ANA Bulletin No.102b, dated April 30 1945, Army-Navy Aeronautical Bulletin, Lacquer; Cellulose Nitrate, Spec. AN-L-29 states:-
"1b. The listing of products in this bulletin does not waive the inspection requirements of the specification. The furnishing of paint which proves to be unequal to the test samples submitted, may be sufficient cause for removing the product and the manufacturer's name from the list."
2. The failure of a product furnished by the parent company or any authorized plant or affiliate will result in the removal of the product from the approved list and thus prohibit the furnishing of the material by either the parent company and its plants or affiliates until such time as satisfactory requalification has been completed by the parent company."
So much for a freewheeling disregard of requirements! The aeroplane and paint manufacturers knew what was at stake and no amount of convenient homespun hindsight or questionable analogy can alter that documented record. But even accepting a generic premise that what was required was not always done, so far not a single shred of substantive evidence has been offered for scrutiny or to support the specific assertion that a light gray paint was applied instead of paint matched (however imperfectly) to duck egg blue and Sky, even before the question of precisely what the colour value of that light gray paint might have been. So far it is a speculative hypothesis based wholly on selective colour photographs and distinguished by an unequivocal presentation which disregards all evidence to the contrary. As such it is a literally incredible argument. One might as legitimately say that the appearance of RAF spinners and fuselage bands in some colour photographs demonstrates that they were not painted in Sky but rather in white or cream. All the more remarkable then that it has gained such traction with modellers and with kit, decal and even paint manufacturers. One prominent decal manufacturer has even described the under surface colour of RAF Tomahawks as "Du Pont Light Gray" as though inventing a paint colour name that was never officially used by Du Pont or Curtiss will somehow legitimise a hypothesis. Who might buck this trend?
In the schematic above the two colour values of Du Pont 71-021 (from the Curtiss supplied paint swatch and the Du Pont colour card chip) are presented in a gradient chip (left to right) juxtaposed against measured MAP colour standard values for Sky and Sky Blue. These illustrate standards so in order to envisage the reality of applied paints consider shifts to slighter lighter, "whiter" variants of Sky and slightly deeper (greener and yellower) variants of 71-021 (appearing as "duck egg green" as described by Mr Bowyer who noted in respect of RAF Sky that lighter shades were in evidence by 1941 and eventually a very pale shade in use by late 1943.). Or indeed shifts of both to slightly more blueish variants approaching Sky Blue - only very small incremental changes are required to push these colours from light blue green to light greyish blue. Bear in mind the tendency of RAF paints to chalk rapidly (whiten - perhaps one reason that the Sky standard appears so deep in chroma) and the effects of shadow - in photographs a true comparison must be at the point where the Sky band lies beneath the fuselage and against the under surface paint - but also the reflective qualities of differently manufactured paints. An informed decision and an individually interpretative conclusion on a model is perfectly legitimate. In practice the paint colours revolve around a "wheel" of paint manufactured to standard, batch differences from pigment and mixing variations, application processes, surface treatments and wear, and finally environmental degradation. That is not to say anything goes - the centre of the wheel is the paint colour value as intended by specification - but the revolving elements militate against a slavish precision in replicating the colours.
In Part 4 the history of the Tomahawk in RAF service in the UK and the change of scheme from TLS to DFS will be explored in more detail.
One of the issues with the insistence that the paint applied to the under surfaces of AVG (ex-RAF) Tomahawks matched US Aircraft Grey is that this was never a camouflage paint colour but instead a gloss paint colour. The evolution of US paint colour standards shows it first appearing as ANA 512 in ANA 166 of 4 Dec 1943 so how it could have been deliberately chosen as a substitute colour standard for duck egg blue, Sky or even Sky Grey in 1940/41 is beyond comprehension. ANA 512 Aircraft Gray became 1645 in TT-C-595 of 1950 but was then replaced by FS 16473 (note 16473 - gloss). The previous Light Gray (125 in Bulletin 3-1 Revised of 21 April 1943) did not appear in ANA Bulletin 166 but was superceded by 1750 in TT-C-595 of 1950 and replaced in turn by FS 13578 in FS 595 of March 1956. The devil is always in the detail and the hypotheses so assuredly promoted by some often overlook or ignore the inconvenient but ever important chronology. Even were it to be accepted that this colour match is based only on the appearance of the Tomahawk under surface paint in colour photographs (rather than an assertion that Aircraft Gray paint was actually used) it is probably worth citing Robert D Archer's admonition in his introduction to the US paint colour standards in the mighty 'USAAF Markings and Camouflage 1941-1947' (Schiffer, 1997):-
"Color photographs reproduced with varying degrees of accuracy in various books and magazines during the last fifty years have been offered as evidence of variations in USAAF standard colours. These variations are mainly due to indifferent color separations and/or variation in inks used in the color printing process. The author has not found any evidence of such color variations in viewing original USAAF color material. Variations from regulation paint schemes and colors did exist in the field, particularly in the early days of the Pacific war theater, but this was under dire combat conditions and decidedly not the norm for the USAAF."
The Tomahawk, it will be remembered, was being painted for the RAF well before the USA was in the war - or indeed applying camouflage to its own aeroplanes. But even in respect of the much touted idea that the US adopted a more freewheeling approach to the subject of specifications and paint colours there is something pertinent from Mr Archer:-
"Finally, a word of caution; do not assume that the USAAF was prepared to accept batches of paint that did not meet its standard color requirements. For example, ANA Bulletin No.102b, dated April 30 1945, Army-Navy Aeronautical Bulletin, Lacquer; Cellulose Nitrate, Spec. AN-L-29 states:-
"1b. The listing of products in this bulletin does not waive the inspection requirements of the specification. The furnishing of paint which proves to be unequal to the test samples submitted, may be sufficient cause for removing the product and the manufacturer's name from the list."
2. The failure of a product furnished by the parent company or any authorized plant or affiliate will result in the removal of the product from the approved list and thus prohibit the furnishing of the material by either the parent company and its plants or affiliates until such time as satisfactory requalification has been completed by the parent company."
So much for a freewheeling disregard of requirements! The aeroplane and paint manufacturers knew what was at stake and no amount of convenient homespun hindsight or questionable analogy can alter that documented record. But even accepting a generic premise that what was required was not always done, so far not a single shred of substantive evidence has been offered for scrutiny or to support the specific assertion that a light gray paint was applied instead of paint matched (however imperfectly) to duck egg blue and Sky, even before the question of precisely what the colour value of that light gray paint might have been. So far it is a speculative hypothesis based wholly on selective colour photographs and distinguished by an unequivocal presentation which disregards all evidence to the contrary. As such it is a literally incredible argument. One might as legitimately say that the appearance of RAF spinners and fuselage bands in some colour photographs demonstrates that they were not painted in Sky but rather in white or cream. All the more remarkable then that it has gained such traction with modellers and with kit, decal and even paint manufacturers. One prominent decal manufacturer has even described the under surface colour of RAF Tomahawks as "Du Pont Light Gray" as though inventing a paint colour name that was never officially used by Du Pont or Curtiss will somehow legitimise a hypothesis. Who might buck this trend?
In the schematic above the two colour values of Du Pont 71-021 (from the Curtiss supplied paint swatch and the Du Pont colour card chip) are presented in a gradient chip (left to right) juxtaposed against measured MAP colour standard values for Sky and Sky Blue. These illustrate standards so in order to envisage the reality of applied paints consider shifts to slighter lighter, "whiter" variants of Sky and slightly deeper (greener and yellower) variants of 71-021 (appearing as "duck egg green" as described by Mr Bowyer who noted in respect of RAF Sky that lighter shades were in evidence by 1941 and eventually a very pale shade in use by late 1943.). Or indeed shifts of both to slightly more blueish variants approaching Sky Blue - only very small incremental changes are required to push these colours from light blue green to light greyish blue. Bear in mind the tendency of RAF paints to chalk rapidly (whiten - perhaps one reason that the Sky standard appears so deep in chroma) and the effects of shadow - in photographs a true comparison must be at the point where the Sky band lies beneath the fuselage and against the under surface paint - but also the reflective qualities of differently manufactured paints. An informed decision and an individually interpretative conclusion on a model is perfectly legitimate. In practice the paint colours revolve around a "wheel" of paint manufactured to standard, batch differences from pigment and mixing variations, application processes, surface treatments and wear, and finally environmental degradation. That is not to say anything goes - the centre of the wheel is the paint colour value as intended by specification - but the revolving elements militate against a slavish precision in replicating the colours.
In Part 4 the history of the Tomahawk in RAF service in the UK and the change of scheme from TLS to DFS will be explored in more detail.
I await pt 4 with interest! I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts on the different apparent tones between photos of RAF aircraft on delivery/Russian aircraft/Mid East deliveries and those seen in RAF service. Notwithstanding your very valid comments about how monochrome film records, it seems there is a 'lighter' tone apparent in the Dark Earth on TLS aircraft in service.
ReplyDelete