Spitfire prototype - Any experts here?

[H.Johnson]

That was my main source of information, too. I used to work for RJ's nephew and on one occasion he told me that his uncle was meticulous about every detail of his new project and was certainly very involved in the test flight. If that is true, is it likely that he would have let it fly in a 'patchwork' finish?

Smithy

I am not sure where you are getting your info but almost all historical accounts state that by the first flight , K5054 was painted a light blue colour.
She was bare metal and chromate during assembly and some engine trials but blue by time she finally flew.
The difinitive book on the Spitfire is " Spitfire" by Alfred Price.
This book deals with all aspects of the design from start to finish.
There is an exceleent sumarry of te first flight and the contraversy surrounding the date of the first flight.

Fleet16b

 

[Flieger]

Guys: I'm also quoting Alfred Price but "The Spitfire Story" Revised second edition 1995

"On the following day, 10 April, K 5054 went back into the hangar at Eastleigh for initial modifications... ... Also the prototype was painted for the first time, with a very light-blue finish..."

[huh]

/F

 

[Smithy]

Hi fleet18b, my main source is Paul Lucas, who you probably know is the foremost expert and researcher on British aviation paint and camouflage schemes.

K5054 was not painted blue until, as Flieger says, on or just after 10th April when she was grounded for modifications. This was when she was applied with a high gloss light blue-green finish (thought to be BS 381C 110, the "Rolls-Royce" blue).

Most researchers now believe like Lucas, that prior to this she retained the zinc chromate primer finish of a yellowish/green. Indeed Jeffrey Quill describes her as, "...its Works finish, that is to say it was unpainted except for its priming coats".

Although this is a can of worms, most historians now seem to agree with Lucas. He certainly has undertaken more research into this than anyone else.

 

[fleet16b]

Smithy

I stand corrected.
As I look thru the Alfred Price book, here is what I find.
A picture of K5054 unpainted with this caption underneath:
"The prototype Spitfire seen in her original form, pictured at the airfield at Eastleigh near Southhampton probably just before first flight on March 5 1936.
At this time the aircraft was unpainted and lacked fairings for the undercarrige legs; the gun ports were empty, except for the port outer which housed the pitot tube."

Interesting, I always thought she was blue by the time she had her first flight.
Thanks
fleet61b

 

[Smithy]

It's an interesting discussion fleet16b.

In terms of the idea of K5054 first flying in blue, this is just an idea, but it may have arisen due to the fact K5054's first public appearances were in the "Rolls-Royce" blue so therefore a great number of people who saw her for the first time flying remember her as being blue.

Regardless of colour, the most beautiful aeroplane designed by man (IMHO)!

 

[Flieger]

Regardless of colour, the most beautiful aeroplane designed by man (IMHO)!

AMEN to that, Smithy.

/F

 

[H.Johnson]

Standby for a long post - and a recantation. I've ransacked my bookshelves to see on what basis I (and other people) believed the maiden flight to have been in grey-blue primer - not the Rolls-Royce sky blue finish, I hasten to add, which almost everyone I have read appears to agree was added later.

As a result of this, I have revised my opinion. I hasten to point out, it is still just that, as proof is still lacking unless someone can show definitive evidence.

Here is my reasoning. The references to the first flight being in 'grey-blue' or 'blue-grey' (the most common terms used) are by historians, writers - in other words, people who weren't there (e.g. Price, Jackson et al).They are good with description and narrative, but lack direct experience. They also demonstrate a certain similarity of phrase (I'm used to spotting these things) that makes me think they are drawing on one another. I think that the phrase Fleet16b used is in the Jackson book, by the way.

So, the best source would be someone who was there. The problem is, these people are engineers and pilots etc, who have direct experience but their descriptive and narrative powers are not so good. The best bet as a source would be Jeffrey K. Quill, who flew Mutt Summers to Eastleigh, helped him to set up the 'plane, observed the flight throughout and produced a well-written account 'only' 45 years later (ah, yes, the time and memory factor...).

I had read his 'Spitfire' (Arrow Books 1985) several times some years ago and couldn't remember anything in it that made me question the 'conventional wisdom' (all-over light blue primer). For those who don't have the book, here are the relevant points:

The book includes photographs from the same series as Flieger posts above and adds in the text that they show K5054 'just before its first flight' and, 'It was not painted until some time later'. These terms are somewhat imprecise in English, and if you come at it with the mindset (from the other authors) that K5054 sported an all-over finish, you can (as I did) easily envisage a situation where the 'plane was painted in primer some time between the photographs being taken and the maiden flight and a (known) final finish was added later by R-R, after six weeks of modification had taken place (Quill, Page 78).

What supports this? An old RAF friend (who flew Spitfires post-war) pointed out that in the photographs there is no 'smudge' behind the exhaust outlets. The engine has therefore not been 'warmed-up' with the cowling in place, which would have almost certainly taken place intermittently within hours of the flight. So, had the cowling been cleaned or painted before the photographs, or do they show K5054 as it was when first reassembled after shipping from Woolston, with time for primer painting before the flight?

Now, on Page 71 of the above book, there is a description of the people who assembled to witness the flight, and then JkQ goes on to say, ''The Fighter' was in its Works finish, that is to say it was unpainted except for priming coats(sic).' I had read this some time ago and taken 'coats' (note the plural) to imply several all-over coats of primer. Reading it again, it could more readily infer a mixture of coats (or finishes). This is the interpretation I now favour - at least until someone can show some definitive photographs of the actual flight - most documentaries and some books show K5054 in its later (post A&AEE) form.

One more point - I contacted another old friend, who worked in the aircraft industry a couple of decades after these events took place and asked him if there was a standard aluminium primer. He said that zinc chromate (etching) primer had been used as long as anyone could remember. That was usually yellow, he said...but that's another story!

Thanks for reading - if you still are!

 

[Flieger]

Excellent post there, H.Johnson pointing out the perils of aviation history research. :eusa_clap

Until we find 100% proof of a photo of K5054 during her first flight we can only make educated guesses on how this lady was "dressed" for the occation.

Just to be clear: The intention with my model was NOT to show the first flight of the Spitfire prototype. I just found the scheme interesting and I plan to present my model just as she looks in those photos.

Cheers,
/F

 

[Mike K.]

Flieger, you're just going to have to make two Spitfire models...one painted and one bare aluminum! lol I'm really looking forward to seeing the completed project. Large scale 1/32 models are great for super detailing. There's limited space in my home so have to stick with 1/48 scale.

I love this kind of research into aviation history! This is exactly what The Fedora Lounge should be about - getting the facts straight and preserving the knowledge/details of a bygone era.

 

[H.Johnson]

Understood. Just pursuing an interest. I think the Price book has a photograph of the starboard (right) side of K5054 from the same series. Do you have one of these?

A further ponder - why are there so few images of the maiden flight? Secrecy? Eastleigh was a public airport with buildings nearby and a railway running right next to it.

More - why are there no people in the images of K5054 to which we are referring? In 1930s photographs, it is unusual for people not to be seen - it seems almost to have been a compulsion to get 'in the shot', if only to give a sense of scale. Was only the photographer present?

And, why so few images of RJ with his 'baby'? Legend has it there is only one, taken by his son. Having grown up in the same town and attended the same school as RJ, I can attest to the local reluctance to appear in photographs, but he appears in a number, why not more with 'the Fighter'?

Excellent post there, H.Johnson pointing out the perils of aviation history research. :eusa_clap

Until we find 100% proof of a photo of K5054 during her first flight we can only make educated guesses on how this lady was "dressed" for the occation.

Just to be clear: The intention with my model was NOT to show the first flight of the Spitfire prototype. I just found the scheme interesting and I plan to present my model just as she looks in those photos.

Cheers,
/F

 

[Flieger]

I wasn't surprised that I would find people here who had the knowledge and shared my interest. This forum is amazing in its diversity.

To be perfectly honest (please don't hurt me guys!), I think the pale-blue scheme was/is a bit boring. I'm sure she looked fabolous sporting it back in the days but the bare aluminium patch-work just scream "PROTOTYPE" and "WORK IN PROGRESS" to me. While we are trying things out and things could go wrong, why make her pretty?

I'm attracted to stuff like that.

/F

 

[carter]

I have to say again, GREAT Thread, gentlemen! The discussion has been fascinating. It's been civil and, when in doubt, gone back to the best extant material available. Research trumps opinion and all done in good form. Bravo!

 

[Flieger]

Understood. Just pursuing an interest. I think the Price book has a photograph of the starboard (right) side of K5054 from the same series. Do you have one of these?

A further ponder - why are there so few images of the maiden flight? Secrecy? Eastleigh was a public airport with buildings nearby and a railway running right next to it.

More - why are there no people in the images of K5054 to which we are referring? In 1930s photographs, it is unusual for people not to be seen - it seems almost to have been a compulsion to get 'in the shot', if only to give a sense of scale. Was only the photographer present?

And, why so few images of RJ with his 'baby'? Legend has it there is only one, taken by his son. Having grown up in the same town and attended the same school as RJ, I can attest to the local reluctance to appear in photographs, but he appears in a number, why not more with 'the Fighter'?

Yes, I have a version of the starboard-side photo. What I'd really like to see is a top-down view (always asking for the impossible).

The questions you raise are intreaguing. During my time in aviation research I have been looking mostly at Sweden and the US. I don't know if it's relevant but I don't think I have seen many photos of prototypes in those two countries where the designer is posing with his "baby". In fact, most shots of the prototype aircrafts I've seen are promotional, made to "sell" the aircraft.

Of course, in many cases there wasn't just "one man" behind a new aircraft like in the case with Mitchell. Getting the whole design team in the photo would probably have obscured the aircraft.

/F

 

[fleet16b]

Flieger, you're just going to have to make two Spitfire models...one painted and one bare aluminum! lol I'm really looking forward to seeing the completed project. Large scale 1/32 models are great for super detailing. There's limited space in my home so have to stick with 1/48 scale.

I love this kind of research into aviation history! This is exactly what The Fedora Lounge should be about - getting the facts straight and preserving the knowledge/details of a bygone era.

People have to understand that K5054 is sometimes referred to as the second design, the first one being a fixed gear gull winged aircraft that was not successful.
In 1936, the K5054 was just another aircraft design competing for an Air Force contract.
While RJM and the others may have treated her slightly different from previous designs, the aircraft had by no means a certain future at that point.
Prior to the first flight, the design was yet to be proven successful.
This would explain why there was only limited amount of interest at that
point.

I do agree with everyone that the Spitfire IMHO , as well as the opinion of most aircraft historians was probably the most beautiful aircraft ever designed. So beautiful that I had one tattooed on my left shoulder when I was 20.

 

[Smithy]

All good points and arguments being raised here.

And although we will never be 100% sure, there are a couple of things of which we can be relatively certain.

There are only really two overall options for how K5054 looked on her maiden flight: a bare metal finish; or painted.

Here, I think the vast majority of accounts and also the research undertaken finds that she was painted when the first flight occurred, and that the paint used was a priming coat (or coats) - as an aside here I personally do not believe that Quill's use of the word "coats" has to mean different primer coats. It would not be unusual for the aircraft to have received more than one priming coat of the same primer, and I an inclined to read Quill's statement this way.

So if we are looking at primer, I'd discount blue-grey immediately. Once again I'll defer to Mr Lucas and his extensive knowledge of aviation paints of the 1930s and 1940s. He states that although the Air Ministry Directorate of Technical Development was at this time drawing up specifications for paint and primers, his research from documentation and contemporary primer paint chips being used at the time point to a zinc chromate based primer, which as HJohnson has pointed out is a rather sickly yellow (what Lucas quotes as similar to FS 33481). There is also anecdotal evidence that Supermarine used "a bright yellowish green primer over the metal areas of the first production Spitfires", and what Lucas believes to be apparent on the wreckage of Spitfire I X4422, a "bright green" which is close to FS 34138, and quite unlike the RAF grey-green we are used to seeing on Spitfires.

I think that Lucas' position that K5054 had a yellow/green zinc chromate primer on the metal areas aside from the cowling, and with aluminium pigmented dope on the control surfaces is the strongest bet.

HJohnson, in terms of people not being in the photos, I don't think that is terribly problematic. Many photographs of prototype aircraft during the 1930s show only the aircraft in most of the images I have - the Hornet (prototype Fury), Gauntlet, Hurricane, etc. Scale was often shown by photographing the aircraft next to a "measuring pole", a largish striped square pole that resembled a fence post.

Flieger, there's a top view photo of K5054 in the Alfred Price article on K5054 from 2006 that I sent you but unfortunately it's from December 1936 and she's in the Cellon French Grey. I haven't seen a similar view photo from the 5th or 6th of March in the first flight scheme.

 

[Flieger]

Flieger, there's a top view photo of K5054 in the Alfred Price article on K5054 from 2006 that I sent you but unfortunately it's from December 1936 and she's in the Cellon French Grey. I haven't seen a similar view photo from the 5th or 6th of March in the first flight scheme.

Thanks Smithy. Yes I saw that photo but it's very hard to make out any details from it due to that pesky layer of paint applied at the time. Problem here is that I need to convert a Spitfire Mk V wing into the rather unique wing of the K5054. There is of course a good drawing in the Spitfire book by Price that I can and will use, but a photo is always best.

While we are still on the topic: Any ideas on the cockpit colour for K5054?

/F

 

[Smithy]

Check your email Mike

I realised that I had forgotten to send you the scale plans for K5054 including the wing details before guns were fitted.

Hopefully that should be helpful for the modelling project.

Interior colouring? That'll be another can of worms I fear! I'll have a poke around but I fear that what else I have is with the rest of my books in shipment from Norway.

 

[Flieger]

Thank you Smithy! Another batch of VERY useful material. Spot on what I needed.

Yeah. Let's not open the cockpit can now. I can save building and painting that part until I have the outer surfaces rescribed - It will take a while.

Cheers,
/F

 

[Smithy]

Off the top of my head with the interior, I've seen a lot of modellers do K5054 with the standard RAF interior grey-green. Whether this is correct is anyone's guess. I had a chat a few years ago with Guy Black from HAC as I was building a Hawker Fury model and as they were/are restoring one I was asking about interior colourings for this. He had found that Hawker were using the interior grey-green on some of the interior components of Furies (tubular structure, rudder pedals, etc) so this was early to mid 1930s. Obviously this is a different manufacturer but it shows that the paint was in use fairly early on.

Your other options would be bare aluminium or even at a stretch the exterior primer colour. I'd be inclined to not go for the exterior colour and either go for grey-green or bare aluminium.

This is just some spur of the moment thoughts. Although looking at the cockpit photos of K5054 (even though they are early 1937) I sent you, the interior does "appear" to maybe be painted. The seat though looks to be bare aluminium and not Bakelite like later production Spits. I wouldn't swear to it though!

 

[Flieger]

Thanks again Smithy. Yeah, I'm thinking along the exact same lines.

Options for me are.

- RAF "interior grey-green" FS 34226
- Aluminium (or light grey)
- Zinc cromate'ish primer

Most other modellers have painted their Spitfire prototype in RAF "interior grey-green", one of the K5054 replicas is sporting it as well. One guy at a forum stated "it was Aluminium" without providing proof, source or any reasoning behind his remark. [huh]

Personally I think ""interior grey-green" is the "safe" way to go if I'm not planning to defend my choise in absurdum.