Pup issues..

[Graff]

Hi all, I have some issues with my Sopwith pup documentation....

I competed with my quarter scale Pup N5182, but it wasn't up to snuff...

I am currently building a new quarter scale Pup, and I want to build a Beardmore built FAA pup.

The best example (besides the shuttle worth pup) is the replica at the FAA museum in Yeovilton.

It has flown, it is weathered, it looks good and there's a lot of good photos of it.

There's this huge problem though.... The paint and markings.

What colours are they, it seems to not be the standard colours.

The PC10 seems a bit too green, the roundels on the body are darker than the wing roundels.

I tried to get the museum to verify the paint chips I have of the PC10 and the marking colours, but they couldn't help me.

The paint chips I have is from the Camel at Hendon, and is considered to be a good representation of the correct colours.

Does anyone know how to proceed?

I could use a colour photo as documentation, but it's not ideal in any way.

Living in Sweden has its drawbacks as I can't just pop over to the museum.....

 

[J D 8 - Moderator]

One of the great discussions amongst WW1 scale modelers both flying and static. Have a look at "BRITMODELLER.COM

 

[Robin Colbourne]

I used to get Airfix Magazine back in the 1970s.  I recall an article that said PC10 could vary significantly from green to brown depending upon who made it and which batch it was.  It should also be borne in mind that any original paint may have changed colour with age, so don't get too hung up about it.  There are no colour photographs from the time, so no one can be sure anyway.

AS JD8 says, Britmodeller has plenty of discussion on the subject.

Edited September 6 by Robin Colbourne

[J D 8 - Moderator]

 Probably the best you can do is get some good photos of the Pup you intend to model and go from there.

[Shaun Walsh]

4 hours ago, J D 8 - Moderator said:

 Probably the best you can do is get some good photos of the Pup you intend to model and go from there.

If you can get hold of a number of colour photos in digital format and download the photo editor program "GIMP" which is free, you can colour correct using say a black tyre or the white of the roundel as the reference. you can then read off the measured l*a*b* colour space numbers using the colour picker function. You could then contact your preferred paint supplier with this information and they could recommend their closest matching paint.

[Don Fry]

15 minutes ago, Shaun Walsh said:

If you can get hold of a number of colour photos in digital format and download the photo editor program "GIMP" which is free, you can colour correct using say a black tyre or the white of the roundel as the reference. you can then read off the measured l*a*b* colour space numbers using the colour picker function. You could then contact your preferred paint supplier with this information and they could recommend their closest matching paint.

When I worked I was forever explaining to colleagues that cameras are not colour matching devices, but can be used to produce the same error every time. A photo gives an impression. Colour cards or your editor, using photos, rather than the real thing,( and being picky the same light spectrum and light temperature) at best give impressions..

I also remember, from youth, a club member at one of the big air museums, admiring a exhibit, and noting a restorer was touching up paintwork, using Airfix Matt enamel.

 

Edited September 6 by Don Fry
Last para added.

[Shaun Walsh]

13 minutes ago, Don Fry said:

When I worked I was forever explaining to colleagues that cameras are not colour matching devices, but can be used to produce the same error every time. A photo gives an impression. Colour cards or your editor, using photos, rather than the real thing,( and being picky the same light spectrum and light temperature) at best give impressions..

I also remember, from youth, a club member at one of the big air museums, admiring a exhibit, and noting a restorer was touching up paintwork, using Airfix Matt enamel.

 

True. The only way to get a correct colour is to measure the colour of the original with one on these.

https://www.xrite.com/categories/portable-spectrophotometers/ci6x-family

[RottenRow]

The replica that is at Yeovilton G-BIAU / N6452 (though your photo is taken at Cranfield, in the mid '80s, at one of the PFA rallies) was built in 1984 by Skysport Engineering, who are only a stone's throw from Shuttleworth / Old Warden.

 

They are still in business and might be able to help with the colours of the Pup, assuming that it hasn't been repainted since it was constructed, unlikely as it's been in the museum for most of its life.

 

As it's a replica in Naval not RFC colours perhaps the upper surface colour would have been different (due to its use over the sea perhaps?).

 

Skysport's website is here:

 

http://www.skysportengineering.co.uk/airworthy.htm

 

They would certainly be worth approaching. The Pup is listed about half way down the page, though no details are given.

 

Brian.

[leccyflyer]

Probably not worth the trouble of spectrascopic analysis  though - since it's a completely new recent 21st century colour scheme, the variation in colour during the Great War was likely to have been huge and then there is the scale effect to take account of, such that viewing a model as if it was the full size the colours would be lightened and more subdued than a colour patch, even if that were 100% authentic.

Edited September 6 by leccyflyer

[RottenRow]

Here is a film of the original N6452.. the first aircraft ever to land on a ship's deck. N6453 was also used in the trials, and there is some disagreement between different sources as to which aircraft was used in which trial.

 

In the third attempt, the aircraft ended up in the sea, killing the pilot. I believe the aircraft shown going over the side was a different (later) one, as Dunning's went off the end of the deck when, after aborting his landing, its engine power failed to increase. There are pictures of that on the internet.

 

It doesn't help with your colours (unless you paint it black and white...) but it's an interesting clip nonetheless.

 

Brian.

[Robin Colbourne]

This comment by Stevehed on Britmodeller is interesting given the Germans' name for the Pup: 
 

"I've always gone with the brown PC10 school mainly because CS Lewis is supposed to have said his aircraft were brown and also an obscure quote I can never find that said that the German pilots called the RFC aircraft sparrows because of the colour. They're brown in my garden but seeing the photos above of a paint job I can see everyday and is definitely brown with a slight reddishness I can see where the green/brown argument comes from.

Regards, Steve"

[Graff]

On 06/09/2024 at 20:35, RottenRow said:

The replica that is at Yeovilton G-BIAU / N6452 (though your photo is taken at Cranfield, in the mid '80s, at one of the PFA rallies) was built in 1984 by Skysport Engineering, who are only a stone's throw from Shuttleworth / Old Warden.

 

They are still in business and might be able to help with the colours of the Pup, assuming that it hasn't been repainted since it was constructed, unlikely as it's been in the museum for most of its life.

 

As it's a replica in Naval not RFC colours perhaps the upper surface colour would have been different (due to its use over the sea perhaps?).

 

Skysport's website is here:

 

http://www.skysportengineering.co.uk/airworthy.htm

 

They would certainly be worth approaching. The Pup is listed about half way down the page, though no details are given.

 

Brian.

I've been in contact with Skysport engineering (thanks!), and they can't remember what exact colour was used, but that there was some pigment variation back then. They do remember it being much greener. And that the body roundels were a darker blue.....

"I think it was PC10, but I recall it being rather more green than we intended! The other Pup, BIAT, displayed in New Zealand, is a slightly more brown colour. But that was RFC, not RNAS scheme.

The blue is slightly darker. They did vary though. We have some original fabric here and there are(were) differences with the pigments at that time ..."

 

Maybe it was a slight variation between the RNAS and the RFC PC10?

And that can be why there is so much debate about it?

I know that Beardmore built most of the early RNAS Pups, and that may have been why it's not Sopwith standard?

Skysport engineering states themselves that the original fabric they have has variations.

But also that the N6452 ended up a bit greener than anticipated.

Edited September 8 by Graff

[David Davis]

I believe that the colours ere mixed by hand during the Great War so there may have been a difference in shade or even colour on aircraft produced in the same factory. Certainly there are variations in colour even today when paint is made in batches. Then there's the effect of ultra violet rays from the sun...

 

In 1917 I don't suppose that anyone was much bothered provided the aircraft was painted and in flying condition.

 

If I ever get round to building a Pup, and I have an unemployed Laser V Twin in its box, I will paint it in a post war colour scheme, red and white! Check out G-EBAZ in "The Aeromodeller" October 1994.

[Mike T]

Donkeys years ago, I built an all-sheet Sopwith Triplane from Gordon Whitehead's free Aeromodeller plan.  For the PC 10, I experimented with some Humbrol enamels and came up with the following formulation:  10 tinlets of Dark Earth; 10 tinlets of Dark Green; 1 tinlet of black.  Mixed together in a jar, these gave a pleasing colour which looked distinctly brown in strong sunlight and ditto green in poor light!  This seemed to me to satisfactorily resolve all the arguments.  I've noticed that Flair Spectrum PC10 seems to have the same qualities and is still being produced under the Guild Chroma brand.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

This is a favourite topic in car restoration circles.  When agreement can’t be made over colours in living memory, what chance is there in reaching any positive conclusions over aircraft painted with hand mixed paint from a variety of sources and scraps of original material with well over a century of aging, exposure to UV and airborne pollution?

 

As is often quoted, paint is only original once and any refinishing or modelling can only be an impression of the original. I don’t see how any scale judge could make a pronouncement of scale infidelity on a small shading or tinting variation. 
 

Anyway, any student of the period photography will confirm that WW1 took place in black (or sepia) and white…

[RottenRow]

I'm glad that Skysport got back to you.

 

2 hours ago, Graff said:

We have some original fabric here and there are(were) differences with the pigments at that time ...

 

If by this they mean they have some original WW1 fabric samples, then a small sample of those should satisfy the scale judges, if there was evidence showing their source as the builder of the replica. That's about as good as you'll get I think.

 

It's interesting that the wing and fuselage and possibly tail markings had different colours... the old black and white photos of the original aircraft do suggest that. Also the wing roundels look to cover the whole chord of the upper wing. Also notice the proportions of the size of the central (red) dot of the wing compared to fuselage roundels. This suggests that the wing roundels (upper wing at least) had quite a broad outer white ring (outside the blue) which if you stare at the photo you can convince yourself is there.

 

 

Of course, as you will be finishing your model as the replica, the wing roundels won't have the same outline, as that only has the red/white/blue rings.

 

Brian.

[Geoff S]

I built my as yet unflown Pup to represent this trainer as illustrated in the Windsock Datafile book. Since all the photographs of the original are monochrome there must be some guesswork. In fact they state that the wing upper top may not have been PC10 but vermilion! 

 

 

 

So I chose what colours were reasonable representations (the Oratex is Corsair Blue) and who can possibly deny that my Pup is an accurate representation of the 1917 original? I think  the pattern is close, but as to the colours, who knows?

 

Edited September 8 by Geoff S

[J D 8 - Moderator]

 When I fixed up my old DB Major Mannock many years ago I had to strip back the nose and one wing to remove much oil contamination. I purchased some Flair models PC10 for the repaint, turned out to be nothing like colour on the model which even has a green patch on the upper wing. I had seen black and white pics that suggest that many in service WW1 were similar patch ups so used what I had to get it flying.

Still the same today and I have had numerous comments as to how realistic this semi scale model is in the air. [The red bits on the lower wing are bomb racks added later just for fun] Recon the design is bit of a mix of SE5a and Matinsyde Elephant.

[Mike T]

LOL.  Here's the fus of my Pup painted in Flair PC10.  It looks pretty much like the back end of your Mannock.  I noticed that when the PC10 can is opened, the paint looks very green (as in the front end of your pic), but when stirred, turns brown.

 

[J D 8 - Moderator]

  Funny thing is it was the front end of mine that was repainted and is a dark chocolate colour, the photo does make it look green which just goes to show they can not be trusted. [ pic taken by clubmate with a fancy camera] The pic below taken with my basic pocket camera and to me colour is much closer to the what I see on the model.

 Perhaps even batches of Flair PC10 varied as much original paint.😁

   

[RottenRow]

I dropped into Old Warden (Shuttleworth) today, so went to look at their Pup (which actually started out as a Dove.. the civilian version). It definitely looks more brown than green, but may look different under natural rather than artificial light. This aircraft will have been recovered and repainted several times over the years.

 

 

In the same hangar are most of their other British WW1 aircraft, as you can see in the background in these photos. They vary markedly in colour (though a couple may be PC12 rather than PC10).

 

 

The issue that Graff has, though, is having proof that the colour of his model is accurate to the particular full-sized aircraft that he is basing his model on. This is critical for scale models competing in the F4C and F4H categories. As the aircraft is still in existence (in the FAA Museum) there is some possibility of getting colour matches approved for judging.

 

The BMFA's Scale Technical Committee people generally say that if you can't prove that various critical elements of an F4C/F4H scale model match those of the prototype, including the colour, then choose another example to model. If a model doesn't get a good score when statically judged, it is an uphill battle to catch up during the flying rounds.

 

I do hope that you can get the necessary proof Graff, and that perhaps we will see it entered into the 2026 World Scale Championships that are being held at Buckminster in the UK.

 

Brian.