Malta's Hurricanes camo scheme (1941)

[CJE]

Gentlemen,
I read your posts with considerable attention, though I can hardly make my mind up.
Now, one more question: what colour should the spinner be?

Thanks.

Chris

[VoyTech]

Chris, I cannot comment on the spinner colour of Malta Hurricanes. Desole.

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

Given that there is proof that Sky Blue was used on RAF aircraft, you can't declare that it wasn't on the grounds of a lack in an AMO

Indeed, there is proof that Sky Blue was used on RAF aircraft around mid-1940 in Britain. The most authoritative and in-depth publication on the subject: SAM Camouflage & Markings No. 2 "The Battle for Britain - RAF May to December 1940" by Paul Lucas explains that lack of stocks of the correct Sky paint and unclear wording of the regulations that introduced the new paint led to variations in the actual colour used. It lists Eau-de-Nil, Sky Blue, and Sky Grey as substitute colours used during the transition period in place of the temporarily unavailable Sky proper. It also says that "The correct shade of Sky [...] by November/December 1940 was becoming well established". By 1941 there was no shortage of Sky proper, and the actual hue of Sky was no longer unknown or subject to confusion, so I see no connection between the BoB period relics and the Malta related discussion here.

you may go to the appropriate book and see for yourself.

I did. Geoffrey Pentland, Frank Smith, Peter Malone and Gary Byk in their publications about RAAF camouflage colours make it pretty clear that Sky Blue was a standard RAAF colour used when painting aircraft in Australia, just like Foliage Green (instead of RAF's Dark Green) or Earth Brown (instead of RAF's Dark Earth). Again, I see no connection between RAAF-specified colours of 1942 onwards and this Malta-related discussion.

Ron Bellings collection of paintings of South African subjects

I am ashamed to say that I do not know the collection of Ron Belling's paintings, so cannot comment on these.

the Vasco Barbic comment came from unpublished correspondence.

Again, I cannot comment on comments in unpublished correspondence.

I don't know any evidence that Malta declared Desert Scheme as undesirable on their Hurricanes, although I can well understand it. The statement that is normally referred to was made after the arrival of the Spitfire, and only one later delivery can be seen to be affected by this.

This opinion of yours is exactly what I meant. Earlier in this thread you seemed adamant that once "ME Command rejected the use of Sky as too light" Sky must have been dropped and another colour substituted for good. But you also think that when Malta Command rejected the use of Desert Scheme on Spitfires "only one later delivery was affected by this". If you do believe that Malta Command's request to discontinue delivering Spitfires in Desert Scheme was ignored and the scheme continued to be applied to aircraft for later deliveries then what makes you so sure that ME Command's request to discontinue delivering aircraft with Sky undersurfaces was not ignored just as well?

I think the current knowledge of undersurface colours used in the Med can be summed up as follows:
1) aircraft with Sky undersurfaces were certainly used in the theatre,
2) aircraft with Azure undersurfaces were certainly used in the theatre,
3) it is possible that aircraft with Sky Blue undersurfaces may have been used there, but positive proof is lacking.
I still can't see what makes you so certain that Sky Blue was the most probable undersurface colour of Malta Hurricanes.

[Graham Boak]

I simply reverse the bias in your comments 1 and 3. I know of no direct evidence that Sky was used in the theatre, in 1940/1, although I would not exclude it. There are several references to a light blue, which would be very early for Azure Blue. However, I would not rule out confusion between the known prewar Sky Blue and the new Azure Blue, as the two colours are quite close.

Please do not use the term Azure: this is a different, earlier, colour, which may well have been used in the ME but where you actually mean Azure Blue. I find it interesting that you suggest that the phrase "Sky, Azure and Mediterranean Light Blue" in the AMO cannot mean Sky Blue but does mean Azure Blue. Consistency suggests otherwise. Whether we can expect the AMOs to be always consistent and unambiguous is perhaps relevant.

Re RAAF Spitfires: I was not referring to RAAF Sky Blue, which would indeed be irrelevant. I was referring to Pentland's comment in the Kookaburra Spitfire Mk.V booklet, that Spitfires were received in a number of colours including Sky Blue. As the early deliveries to Australia include aircraft diverted from the ME/Malta, the relevance seems apparent.

Feel free to exclude any comment in correspondence that you are not privy to, but do not expect me to ignore statements that I know have come from a normally reliable source.

[VoyTech]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

I know of no direct evidence that Sky was used in the theatre, in 1940/1, although I would not exclude it.

In one of your previous posts you seemed to agree that ME Command rejected Sky as being too light. I think this implies that aircraft with Sky undersurfaces must have been delivered to the theatre, otherwise how would they know that the colour was too light? Sky was only just introduced on undersurfaces of RAF aircraft in mid-1940, and did not become standard until late 1940, so there seems little doubt that aircraft with Sky undersurfaces were delivered to the Med in 1940/1.

Please do not use the term Azure: this is a different, earlier, colour, which may well have been used in the ME but where you actually mean Azure Blue.

Please, do not tell me what I "actually mean". AMO A.664/42 issued 2.7.42 specified "azure" as standard undersurface colour for three categories of aircraft (including 'Day fighters, abroad'). The term "Azure Blue" was not used.

I find it interesting that you suggest that the phrase "Sky, Azure and Mediterranean Light Blue" in the AMO cannot mean Sky Blue but does mean Azure Blue. Consistency suggests otherwise.

Consistency suggests that one should look at the entire document rather than just a part of it. AMO A.664/42 specified the 'Undersurfaces colouring' (column 3) for both Section 1 (iii) 'Day bombers, abroad' and Section 2 (iii) 'Day fighters, abroad' as "Sky or azure". The word "blue" was not used. Subsequently A.664 was amended by A.1377 of 24.12.42 which required for Section 2 (iii), column 3: "Delete existing detail and substitute ''Sky, azure or light Mediterranean blue.''" To me this meant simply adding 'Light Mediterranean blue' to the list of undersurface colours for day fighters used abroad, without affecting the two colours that had been authorised previously. If, as you believe, this amendement meant adding 'blue' to those colour names (changing 'Sky' into 'Sky blue' and 'azure' into 'azure blue') then why, in your opinion, was 'blue' not added in a similar manner to the names of "Sky and azure" authorised for bombers?

Re RAAF Spitfires: I was referring to Pentland's comment in the Kookaburra Spitfire Mk.V booklet, that Spitfires were received in a number of colours including Sky Blue. As the early deliveries to Australia include aircraft diverted from the ME/Malta, the relevance seems apparent.

I presume you mean 'Spitfire Markings of the RAAF' Part 1 by Frank Smith & Geoffrey Pentland, published by Kookaburra in 1970. On p. 1 it says: "These machines, tropicalised Mk Vcs, bore the British desert scheme of dark earth and middle stone with azure blue undersurfaces". On p. 2 it refers to "aircraft which arrived in the normal RAF day fighter scheme of dark earth, dark green and sky or sky blue". The text clearly links the alleged sky blue undersurfaces with dark earth/dark green upper surface camouflage. I thought you did not believe any Spitfires were despatched to ME/Malta in such upper surface colour scheme?
More importantly, Geoffrey Pentland's research into Spitfire colours did not end there. Ten years later he has published his fundamental volume 'RAAF Camouflage & Markings' 1939-1945 Vol. 1, also by Kookaburra. On p. 137 he wrote: "The first RAAF Spitfires, received in late 1942, were found to be in an unsuitable desert scheme of dark earth, middle stone and azure blue. (Some also arrived in dark earth and dark green, but the lower surface color or colors are unknown.)" In a case like this, where the same author has published two different intepretations of the same matter, I would rather go for the later one. I feel it is significant that after ten more years of research he no longer felt it right to name 'Sky blue' as one of the undersurface colours applied on Spitfires by the RAF.

[CJE]

Gents,

Though I usually appreciate debates about the sex of the angels, my original question was: what were the colours of the uppersurfaces?
On a colour profile, it makes little difference that the undersurfaces were painted blue, azure blue, sky, sky blue, but it makes a big one between European-type camo and ME-type camo on the uppersurfaces.
Thanks in advance.

[VoyTech]

Chris, I must have misread your original question. I thought you said something about black and white undersides, and I felt that there was a lot of difference between this scheme and any shade of Sky or pale blue (especially in port view).
Also, I believe (and I suppose Graham will agree) that the difference between Sky Blue and Sky is quite noticeable. Perhaps the two of us put the threshold between "little difference" and "big difference" in a different place than you.
And perhaps it would have been wiser if you had identified the specific angels in your first post before asking which sex they were.

[Graham Boak]

Sky was in use on Blenheim Mk.IVs from winter 1939/40, so ME Command would have had opportunities to see examples before the deliveries of any fighters with this underside colour. Sky was not a new colour in June 1940: Sky Type S was a new paint.

Sorry to avoid one possible area of agreement, but I know of no way of telling the 1930 Sky Blue from Sky from black and white photos. Although the basic colour is slightly darker, blue colours usually appear lighter in b+w photos of the period. It is sometimes possible to distinguish the RAE Sky Blue from Sky, where both are on the same aircraft, but I know of no similar examples with the darker colour. Were it possible to distinguish Sky from Sky Blue in this manner, then there are many photos of ME aircraft which could have been used to settle this matter long ago.

Diverging slightly, am I to assume that you believe Sky to be the light colour seen wrapped around the leading edges and nose of Hurricanes in the "spaghetti" scheme?

[CJE]

Well, Voy you get the point.
Let's sum up my concern.
If I publish a profile of a Hurricane Mk. I in Malta (Feb/March 41) with ETO camo scheme, including black and white undersurfaces (reintroduced on 27.11.40), shall I be shot down in flames or have I a reasonnable chance to be right?
Thanks.

[Graham Boak]

Point 1: The Temperate Land scheme certainly was used on some Malta-based Hurricanes. Sorry, I thought that had been made clear earlier, and I don't think VoyTech and I disagree on that.

Point 2: the black and white underside was not reintroduced in November 1940: the black wing was but the white was not. The scheme called for a black wing with the rest of the aircraft remaining in the normal underside colour. There are several clear photos of Hurricanes over Cyprus carrying this scheme.

However: there is a colour photo in "Hurricanes Over Malta", believed to be dated to end 1940/early 1941. (N2633 crashed on 11/1/41, so it would have to be very early. It is in Dark Green/Dark Earth, with a red spinner and red under the nose to about half distance. It appears to have a black port wing , and white on at least the leading edge of the starboard wing, extending up to meet the red under the nose. Looking at the photo, it is not clear to me whether or not the white extends to the whole of the starboard wing underside. This may be N2622/B of 261 Sq. The aircraft is illustrated as such on the front cover - so if you were do show this you would at least have the company of Chris Thomas. N2622 is an aircraft that would have been painted with black/white undersides on delivery to the RAF, so the presumption is that it simply was never overpainted before loss.

Other photos in the book are not particularly helpful, although at least one appear to show a very dark underside to the port wing.

[CJE]

Thanks a lot. That's quite clear.

Chris