G'day Vilka, Great pink paint job! Many years ago I served in the RAAF and cutting a long story short; I'm now retired and for the past 15 years I've been a military aviation historian. I fully understand why you, and many others, don't particularly like the RAF wartime camo colour schemes. On the wider topic of aircraft camouflage, I've read so many stories from WW2 veteran pilots, and interviewed many myself, plus and Air Force admin types who seriously questioned the true value of camo schemes in general. Unlike the 'dazzle' camo applied to large warships in WW1 & 2, aircraft don't stay in ideal spotting locations for long enough for camo to have any real results in 'hiding' the aircraft from enemy eyes. Although, breaking up the outline of the aircraft, apparently, had some small benefit. I must mention here that literally hundreds of potential camo schemes were experimented with by most of the Allies and the positive results were few and far between. All pink and all light blue, as far as I can tell, were two exceptions to the rule. Even these suffered, like all camo schemes, when they added the necessary roundels, aircraft squadron numbers and, in some, 'invasion', 'D-day’ or ‘friendly' stripes. Both the RAF tropical and normal camo schemes were designed to work when enemy aircraft were viewing the aircraft from above. For land based viewers, the blues, greys, off-whites etc. of the underside paint schemes were a little more successful. The topside paint jobs were intended to blend in with the aircraft as it flew over the 'average' landscape of English farmland. As soon as the aircraft crossed over water that downward looking camo was rendered useless. The paint job of the first flying Spitfire prototype was a light blue and worked well on a bright sunny day, which one has to say is not a consistently common situation in most of Britain and Europe. During WW2 the RAAF simply copied RAF colour schemes which, over average Australian terrain made the aircraft stick out like sore thumbs. As uninteresting as it is to model modern aircraft with their various shades of light grey, it must be said that this scheme does work well for aircraft trying to be spotted at long distances. Interestingly, the USAAF began in WW2 with most of their aircraft appearing in bare metal with bright colours designating squadrons etc. and even prominent, colourful 'nose art'. Then, later in the war, almost all the USAAF converted to various hues of olive drab which changed again back to bare metal after they achieved air dominance over Europe and then Japan. Perhaps the most successful camo scheme was the all matt black for night fighters and Catalinas etc. I specialise in modelling WW2 aircraft so; I've got little choice but to stick with schemes that are historically accurate. Like you, I really enjoyed painting up my pink and blue exceptions. Cheers, all the best and thanks for this interesting video. Bill H.
Great bit of historical discussion at the start. Very nice work on the Reccy Spitfire. To deal with bleeding under masking. Burnishing down the masking tape into any panel lines with a cocktail stick, then seal the edge with the original colour before painting the main colour you have masked for.
I usually push masking tape into panel lines, but haven’t heard about resealing it with the original colour, I’ll have to try it some time. Thanks for the suggestion!
Nice build. Been enjoying watching your videos for a little while now and really appreciate both your modelling skills and presentation style. May I make one comment not intended as a criticism? When saying RAF squadron numbers you don't add 'th or rd, (as in 16th squadron or perhaps the 43rd squadron). Properly, you just say the number (sixteen squadron or forty three squadron. Or nine squadron or seventy four squadron). If there are more than two digits, (maybe 617), you say 'six one seven,' not six hundred and seventeen. There are exceptions (we Brits just love confusing exceptions), but that's a pretty reasonable guide. Subscribed.
I have KP Spit FR IX awaiting and I agree with you, these regularly painted Spits are boooooooring. Even thou the aircraft is nice looking, I wouldn't force myself to build more than one Mk Ia, Vb, IXc or even XIV (the most beatiful wartime version produced on mass scale). What's the point since they all are painted the same way? I can build more that one 109G-6 because the pattern on the fuselage was never the same on two different aircraft, but British planes?
G'day Vilka, Great pink paint job! Many years ago I served in the RAAF and cutting a long story short; I'm now retired and for the past 15 years I've been a military aviation historian.
I fully understand why you, and many others, don't particularly like the RAF wartime camo colour schemes. On the wider topic of aircraft camouflage, I've read so many stories from WW2 veteran pilots, and interviewed many myself, plus and Air Force admin types who seriously questioned the true value of camo schemes in general.
Unlike the 'dazzle' camo applied to large warships in WW1 & 2, aircraft don't stay in ideal spotting locations for long enough for camo to have any real results in 'hiding' the aircraft from enemy eyes. Although, breaking up the outline of the aircraft, apparently, had some small benefit.
I must mention here that literally hundreds of potential camo schemes were experimented with by most of the Allies and the positive results were few and far between.
All pink and all light blue, as far as I can tell, were two exceptions to the rule. Even these suffered, like all camo schemes, when they added the necessary roundels, aircraft squadron numbers and, in some, 'invasion', 'D-day’ or ‘friendly' stripes.
Both the RAF tropical and normal camo schemes were designed to work when enemy aircraft were viewing the aircraft from above. For land based viewers, the blues, greys, off-whites etc. of the underside paint schemes were a little more successful.
The topside paint jobs were intended to blend in with the aircraft as it flew over the 'average' landscape of English farmland. As soon as the aircraft crossed over water that downward looking camo was rendered useless.
The paint job of the first flying Spitfire prototype was a light blue and worked well on a bright sunny day, which one has to say is not a consistently common situation in most of Britain and Europe.
During WW2 the RAAF simply copied RAF colour schemes which, over average Australian terrain made the aircraft stick out like sore thumbs.
As uninteresting as it is to model modern aircraft with their various shades of light grey, it must be said that this scheme does work well for aircraft trying to be spotted at long distances.
Interestingly, the USAAF began in WW2 with most of their aircraft appearing in bare metal with bright colours designating squadrons etc. and even prominent, colourful 'nose art'.
Then, later in the war, almost all the USAAF converted to various hues of olive drab which changed again back to bare metal after they achieved air dominance over Europe and then Japan.
Perhaps the most successful camo scheme was the all matt black for night fighters and Catalinas etc.
I specialise in modelling WW2 aircraft so; I've got little choice but to stick with schemes that are historically accurate. Like you, I really enjoyed painting up my pink and blue exceptions.
Cheers, all the best and thanks for this interesting video.
Bill H.
Nice build. A bit of Spitfire trivia - the exhausts were made of an alloy that didn't rust.
Very beaytfulll
My young niece wanted a Spitfire, but she wanted a PINK one. I did a 1/72 Airfix in bright pink for her.
Very cool looking.
Great bit of historical discussion at the start. Very nice work on the Reccy Spitfire. To deal with bleeding under masking. Burnishing down the masking tape into any panel lines with a cocktail stick, then seal the edge with the original colour before painting the main colour you have masked for.
I usually push masking tape into panel lines, but haven’t heard about resealing it with the original colour, I’ll have to try it some time. Thanks for the suggestion!
Nice build. Been enjoying watching your videos for a little while now and really appreciate both your modelling skills and presentation style. May I make one comment not intended as a criticism? When saying RAF squadron numbers you don't add 'th or rd, (as in 16th squadron or perhaps the 43rd squadron). Properly, you just say the number (sixteen squadron or forty three squadron. Or nine squadron or seventy four squadron). If there are more than two digits, (maybe 617), you say 'six one seven,' not six hundred and seventeen. There are exceptions (we Brits just love confusing exceptions), but that's a pretty reasonable guide.
Subscribed.
Thanks for the feedback and subscription! Will definitely take into account next time I’m building and RAF subject
Yey kovozavody Prostějov its from my country czech😆💪🏻
Very nice I don't know why you don't have more subscribers
Haha thank you, appreciate the support
Omg I love your intro🤩👌🏻
I have KP Spit FR IX awaiting and I agree with you, these regularly painted Spits are boooooooring. Even thou the aircraft is nice looking, I wouldn't force myself to build more than one Mk Ia, Vb, IXc or even XIV (the most beatiful wartime version produced on mass scale). What's the point since they all are painted the same way? I can build more that one 109G-6 because the pattern on the fuselage was never the same on two different aircraft, but British planes?
Would a PR Spitfire have guns?
Estabilizador horizontal do Spit e reto e não em diedro.