Hi, Ive nearly finished my Mark iX and I was wondering is the cammo hard edge or soft Ive checked photo's but Its hard to tell, thanks for any help.

Heh heh, this one is one of the great unknowns John. For every pic that shows hard edge there will be one that appears to show a soft edge. Even on one aircraft there appear to be variations.



In this pic the camo demarkation appears hard edged behind the cockpit but soft edged on the rudder and tail. Compare the paint demarkation to that on the ID band on the rear fuselage which is really hard.

The story is that during manufacturing rubber mats were laid on the spitfires to mask them for painting, giving a hard edge. However it is said that the painters were so used to the pattern that they could do it without the rubber mats, that would give a soft edge.

I have always thought the slightly soft edge does look more realistic on a model.

This is an argument that will rage forever, but I have finally made up my mind having read "The Royal Air Force or World War Two in colour" by Roger A. Freeman. There is a section on "Production Painting" which actually confirms what I had always thought. This had been re-enforced By Harri (JetProvost) with whom I work, he used to paint RAF Aircraft at RAF Finningley. The method discribed in the book is exactly the same as RAF aircraft were painted while they still wore disruptive cammo, as told to Harri by another painter who did this.

"Aircraft of the RAF emerged from factories in the colours appropriate to the role for which they had been contracted. The colours and finished scheme were notified by charts and directives from the Ministry of Aircraft Production, who also specified durability standards for dopes and paints, application method and the number of coatings. To follow the disruptive patterning of the two-tone camouflage schemes, charts would show measurements from key location points so the pattern could be chalked on the aircraft for the spray painters who had to ensure that the colours merged one into the other."

The book contains pictures, which show that the camouflage was a very tight freehand pattern. In one, of Mosquito wings, you can see that it has been sprayed just like you would a model aircraft. There may be an issue with copyright so I'm not sure about scanning pics.

As far as rubber mats go I can't see this as a very practical solution. Just imagine trying to move rubber mats around on something like a Lancaster wing, they would be huge and very unwieldy. They would also be covered in paint that when dry would crack off, leaving a right mess. The painters that did this would have a massive amount of experience and wouldn't need mats to get a neat edge. Above all time would be a key factor. It would be so much quicker to just spray free hand.

Apparently Eduard Shaklady? Says that rubber mats were used in a book of his. I just don't see it as being very practical, when speed would have been of the essence. Look at Luftwaffe camouflage. Hard edged at the beginning of the war but soft edged later when there wasn't time for masking. I don't know how Luftwaffe hard edged camo was done, but as it was straight lines, probably masking tape or straight edge?

Mal

Fuel for the Fire.:-) :-) I’ve seen photos of “painters” on aircraft using rubber mattes, but I think that “they are painting masks” may be a misinterpretation. I’ve seen others use rubber mattes, and I myself have used them, while on aircraft, to keep from scratching the “skin” of the aircraft while walking on it, also used to cover “weak” structural areas to spread out the weight of some one standing on it?

Yes Chuck, rubber mats for protecting the airframe maybe, but if it was a good idea to use rubber mats why weren't they used recently? I believe these pictures, of protective rubber mats, have been misinterpreted. I have another theory about why some persist in keeping this (myth? ) alive but I won't repeat it here as it's bound to upset someone. As far as I'm concerned I have my answer
Mal

Yeah, I can see masking tape as being a MUCH more practical method than rubber mats...
I have not read Shaklady's book (I do aircraft in spurts, but don't invest nearly as much in references as I do for armor) but I have read an article within the past few years which cited the use of rubber mats. It indicated that with the mats four different schemes were possible. I really don't see their use as a problem, and when looking at the above photo, find it very probable. The hard edge is very prominent on the wing, but under the exhaust, where you expect a mat to hang with a bit of distance between it and the fuselage, it is soft. Pretty convincing for me.
The article I recall included drawings showing the pattern. Maybe someone else remembers it as well.

I'm an idiot rookie but here is my 2 cents worth.
I seem to remember my parents and grandparents talking about how much of a shortage there was (during the war years) of materials like aluminium, copper, tin, and especially rubber.
When you think about it rubber was used on every single piece of military hardware we had. Does it make sense that anyone would use such large pieces of rubber for something such as masking an aircraft for painting?

I'm probably wrong but hey........
Hermon

WOW didnt know this was such a debateble question , I appreciate the info, think I will go with soft edge as it will be having Invasion stripes so it will be late war I guess, many thanks for your help gentlemen.

I agree that it does seem like a good solution, when talking about fighters, but think about how difficult it would be moving the huge mats required on bombers. The areas of more overspary are typicl of what would happen if you were spraying freehand, on the flat surface of the wing, easy peasy, as you move over the compound surface of the fuselage it is more difficult to keep the spray gun perpendicular to the surface, hence overspray. It's the same when spraying a model.


So a guy who actually painted RAF aircraft used the same method as described in the book.
I think the main thing to think about is which method would be quicker and use less man power?
Mal

Oh, I love this discussion! :-)

As Mal has said We've had many conversations on this subject so I'm not going to go over what he's already said. I think the question has to be why would you want a hard edge on a colour scheme such as this? Another thing that always makes me wonder is how do you get a heavy rubber mat to stick to a fin and rudder? Particularly on a big aircraft such as a medium or heavy bomber. As Chuck has said, the only time I ever saw rubber mats being used on and around aircraft were either on mainplanes to protect the surface or on racking next to the aircraft that components were placed on.

Another little snippet of information for you concerns painting soft edged camo in gloss paint. The way I was taught was that the 'chalk man' drew his lines and then two painters, each one with the different colours started next to each other and worked outwards. This ensured that the two colours were wet when they hit each other and meant that you didn't get an unsightly 'dry' line between them as you tend to get with gloss paint.

So there you go.

Harri