PDA

View Full Version : Sea Prince Colours!!!



Robert Whitton
21st April 2011, 16:51
Rather than continue to intrude on the Bucc photo thread I am posting a variety of Sea Prince photographs to see if they can assist in any way.
I can't tell in the black and white photos what is silver and what is grey and my memory is suspect!


WP314 CU 573 at Carlisle about 2002
The 2 photos were taken the same day and within a few minutes of each other The nose on shot seems to indicate that the aircraft is mainly silver with a red type of daygow. The props red is (in the original photo) a bit more red. However the second picture the airframe is grey with faded dayglow. This agrees with my poor memory.

WF131 at Lossiemouth
May be white or grey undersides

WF120 608
Is White top and grey undersides

WM758 LM 609
May be white or grey undersides

WP 309 880 at Arbroath about 1968
I think is silver with a white nose and top

LM 639 landing at Lossiemouth
May be silver undersides

The final photo is fuzzy but my record states that is is WP309 again at Arbroath 6-7-1963. Yellow bands on wings and rear fuselage. BMS44 has a colour photo at http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=105907&page=9

pagen01
21st April 2011, 17:11
Lovely shots,
880 is in the silver / white roof with cheatline (assume blue, but don't know?) finish which was the earlier VIP/Station Flight scheme, I believe it belonged to Arbroath Stn Flt.
WM756 609 is actually one of the scarcer C.2 versions, and T.1s WF131 & '120 608 are painted in the same light grey / white roof, with blue cheatline Station Flight/VIP scheme.

The final shot is of a T.1 in the earlier training scheme of silver with yellow bands, and '573 (looking very tatty!) is in the final training scheme of light grey and orangy/red.

bms44
21st April 2011, 20:19
Robert (see photo below) here's the port side of WP309, same day, 6th July 1963 at Condor 'At Home' day , Condor crest at that time worn port and starboard. Silver, white nose and yellow trainer bands. Last three,(all credit to MAP) WP309 as 880/A, and again with crest on nose, and final heartbreaking shot on dump at Yeovilton 1989.

pagen01 would confirm cheat line was blue when repainted : she was looking at her best for the RAF Leuchars BoB Day, in light grey and white. Subsequently she went to Culdrose with 750 Squadron circa 1975 before an undercarriage collapse at Yeovilton dealt the final death knell. Brian

pagen01
21st April 2011, 20:24
Nice pictures Brian, what are the panels that seem to be open in the last shot?

bms44
21st April 2011, 20:33
Nice pictures Brian, what are the panels that seem to be open in the last shot?
Good question! Have no idea : perhaps formerly access to underfloors for control /pulley cabling : wouldn't have thought they were hatches or doors, too far back for nosewheel. Hopefully somebody will pop up with the correct answer...someone usually can! Cheers, Brian

pagen01
22nd April 2011, 09:03
I'm wondering if camera doors might have been left in place from the Survey Prince days? As we know know some Pembrokes had recon equipment fitted.
They look too big for normal access panels, did they have the capability to drop paractice flares etc?

Peter Mills
22nd April 2011, 12:03
One of the Sea Prince roles was to train Anti-Sub Operators, the T1 had a configuration of three ASV19a/b positions. The doors that open just behind the nose wheel are/were used when sonobouys are dropped. Inside the aircraft there are two bays in the floor (one per side) with a lid that opens to load the device. I believe that other objects, (Markers etc) could also be deployed via these chutes.

Just removed the last paint from WH118 nose. A lovely shade of RED, note not Gayglo... Despite being told from a primary source, some still persist in their assertion that only Dayglo was used. These individuals only show that that are specifically and generally not reliable sources of information. We are often told that we have not painted an airframe in its "proper" colours. There are two points I wish to make. Firstly an airframe that has been in service for decades has probably had many paint schemes, which one is "right"? Secondly, in the end the owner can paint it sky blue pink if he wants. Get over it if you don't like it, or better still buy your own and you can exercise the choice that the owner has!

pagen01
22nd April 2011, 13:07
Thanks for that Peter, I did wonder if they had a limited 'weapons bay' and what you say confirms this.
There seems to be very few pictures about of the T.1s with the thimble AI style nose radome.

Absolutely agree with your last para aswel.

BTW as we are on the subject of Princes' of the sea, does anyone have any updates on the ex Lasham C.1?

bms44
22nd April 2011, 13:36
One of the Sea Prince roles was to train Anti-Sub Operators, the T1 had a configuration of three ASV19a/b positions. The doors that open just behind the nose wheel are/were used when sonobouys are dropped. Inside the aircraft there are two bays in the floor (one per side) with a lid that opens to load the device. I believe that other objects, (Markers etc) could also be deployed via these chutes. (Peter Mills)Thank you Peter, for that excellent definitive answer, (and pagen01 for your input, good as always!). WP309 was largely used to give jollies to young matelots and Artificer apprentices whilst at HMS Condor : generally trips over the Angus glens and Grampian mountains: her training days were long gone. Here is a shot of her in 1964 doing just that. (I think I could almost hear her, just looking at the slide!) Brian.

NickB
22nd April 2011, 20:23
One of the Sea Prince roles was to train Anti-Sub Operators, the T1 had a configuration of three ASV19a/b positions. The doors that open just behind the nose wheel are/were used when sonobouys are dropped. Inside the aircraft there are two bays in the floor (one per side) with a lid that opens to load the device. I believe that other objects, (Markers etc) could also be deployed via these chutes.

Just removed the last paint from WH118 nose. A lovely shade of RED, note not Gayglo... Despite being told from a primary source, some still persist in their assertion that only Dayglo was used. These individuals only show that that are specifically and generally not reliable sources of information. We are often told that we have not painted an airframe in its "proper" colours. There are two points I wish to make. Firstly an airframe that has been in service for decades has probably had many paint schemes, which one is "right"? Secondly, in the end the owner can paint it sky blue pink if he wants. Get over it if you don't like it, or better still buy your own and you can exercise the choice that the owner has!

This will probably put the cat amongst the pigeons... however, I only ever remember the Sea Princes when at CU as part of 750 NAS as being grey & dayglo orange, not red. Certainly when the dayglo was fresh out of the paintshop it was much deeper in colour, but it never looked red.

The top left picture of Sea Prince '573' just doesn't look right in that colour - it looks like it has been repainted since leaving service. Indeed, look carefully and even the '3' of '573' doesn't look correct, however it does in the other picture where the aircraft also looks spot on in it's (very faded) dayglo paint.

As an aside, many of the FAA aircraft of that time used dayglo orange, including 771 NAS Wessex 1's (&5's) and the Gazelle's of 705 NAS, however at some point in the late 70's they switched to using red - presumably because the dayglo paint faded so quickly. But of course by that time the Sea Princes had retired to be replaced by Jetstreams that had red areas, but never dayglo.

I could be wrong, (and will happily be corrected), but a Sea Prince in 750 NAS colours but painted using red not dayglo just doesn't look correct to me. However, this is in no way meant as a dig to those who preserve these airframes (Peter M etc) - after all if they didn't, what we would we have to look at?

I'm heading back to Helston in a couple of weeks and the father of a very good friend of mine used to work in the 'dope shop' at Culdrose, so maybe he can shed some light?

Anyway, Happy Easter everyone!
NickB

WebPilot
23rd April 2011, 08:09
As an aside, many of the FAA aircraft of that time used dayglo orange, including 771 NAS Wessex 1's (&5's) and the Gazelle's of 705 NAS, however at some point in the late 70's they switched to using red - presumably because the dayglo paint faded so quickly. But of course by that time the Sea Princes had retired to be replaced by Jetstreams that had red areas, but never dayglo.


The last Sea Princes weren't retired until 1979 when their successors came on stream, if you'll forgive the pun. The Gatwick Museum pair were among those airframes so this could explain it.

scotavia
23rd April 2011, 09:21
A lot of DayGlo shade Fire Orange was never painted on aircraft,it was applied as sticky back panels made by the 3M company. The application of the paint variant needded light undercoat to make it reflect properly and was time consuming, the panels were quick. Look at examples such as RAF Chipmunks and you can often see a gap between blocks of the dayglo, this is because the rolls were a certain width.

pagen01
23rd April 2011, 11:40
As an aside, many of the FAA aircraft of that time used dayglo orange, including 771 NAS Wessex 1's (&5's) and the Gazelle's of 705 NAS, however at some point in the late 70's they switched to using red - presumably because the dayglo paint faded so quickly. But of course by that time the Sea Princes had retired to be replaced by Jetstreams that had red areas, but never dayglo.

I could be wrong, (and will happily be corrected), but a Sea Prince in 750 NAS colours but painted using red not dayglo just doesn't look correct to me.

Hi Nick you might have seen the discussion in the other thread, but I do definitely remember some wearing the orangy/red as seen in Laurebies' picture link. this could be for various reseans, such as paint availablity etc.
I really don't remember the bright orange paint as being fluorescent (as some SAR choppers had) but being a flat colour, but willing to accept that I could be wrong.

Just to show how assumption of paint can be wrong, I assumed that most SAR choppers wore fluoresent paint, but compare these pictures taken in the same light on the same day.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/FAAM/WhirlwindHAS7XL853-1.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/FAAM/WessexHU5XS508-1.jpg

BTW keep the Sea Prince pictures coming!

Lee Howard
23rd April 2011, 12:04
Two different finishes there. The Whirlwind is (should be) "Dockerblaze Fluorescent Red-Orange". The Wessex HU.5s were always "Signal Red" (their HAS.1 predecessors were Dockerblaze).

All nicely detailed within a nice new book on its way from the printers the second week in May....;):D

Robert Whitton
23rd April 2011, 12:07
The top left picture of Sea Prince '573' just doesn't look right in that colour - it looks like it has been repainted since leaving service. Indeed, look carefully and even the '3' of '573' doesn't look correct, however it does in the other picture where the aircraft also looks spot on in it's (very faded) dayglo paint.
NickB

As I noted in the initial posting the photos were taken within a short time of each other. The original prints were on the same Kodak paper. Clearly there a number of elements to consider.
The lighting on the day the photos were taken and the angle of the airframe to the light.
How much each side of the airframe was weather worn.
The colour that was achieved by Boots when making the prints. I think they used an automatic contrast adjustment. This may have been judged across the entire film. I certainly remember some poor colour prints from processing. Sometimes an individual reprint could produce a better colour.
Any deterioration in the colours since printing.
The limitations of my scanner when making copies from the prints(I made no adjustments to the lighting or contrast.)
The quality of each individuals computer screen when actually viewing the forum photographs.

The picture of LM 608 taken on a bright sunny day at Lossiemouth in full sunlight is exactly how I remember it and the photo is as clear and crisp as it was when printed. (But it has no dayglow!)

My memory indicates that the second picture was more true to life showing the very faded daygow and the white underneath showing through.

Robert Whitton
23rd April 2011, 12:09
Just to show how assumption of paint can be wrong, I assumed that most SAR choppers wore fluoresent paint, but compare these pictures taken in the same light on the same day.


On my PC screen these 2 photographs look identical

Chox
23rd April 2011, 12:34
Regarding the colours saga, the variations in the shade of dayglow orange is due to various factors. As has been said, some aircraft relied upon stick-on patches which inevitably faded to yellow and then white. The paint applications faded in much the same way.

Other factors had an influence too, including the colour of the primer underneath. Likewise, there does appear to have been more than one primary shade of dayglow orange although to be fair, probably 99 percent of British military aircraft carried precisely the same shade of dayglow. It was just a question of the undercoat, duration/durability of the paint finish, and lighting conditions which affected the outcome. Rob's photos of WP314 and WF131 illustrate things magnificently. Same camera and same film, same day even, and look how different the two aircraft are. But they were both painted precisely the same in precisely the same colours...

Then of course, there's the inevitable problem of photographic reproduction - cameras never capture dayglow properly. Even black & white images show dayglow in different shades, varying from dark grey through to white, depending on the type of film, filters, etc.

As for FAA aircraft, dayglow was replaced (as has been stated previously) by red paint. Signal Red in fact (although the roundel colour remained Post Office Red. The red paint lasts much longer than dayglow and remains in use to this day (Sea Kings, etc.). However, the application of red didn't begin until the Sea Princes had been retired. I seem to recall that one or two Princes did receive red paint after retirement (on fire dumps etc.) but in service? Nope. Same applies to the Meteor T7. It was black (or silver) with dayglow (not red) panels.

Lee Howard
23rd April 2011, 12:41
....although the roundel colour remained Post Office Red.

BS381C-538 Cherry Red for roundels, not Post Office Red. ;)

Chox
23rd April 2011, 12:45
er no, Post Office Red actually. Where the hell has "Cherry Red" come from?! (oh no, another can of worms...)

Lee Howard
23rd April 2011, 12:49
er no, Post Office Red actually. Where the hell has "Cherry Red" come from?!

Err......official drawings! And is what is still applied to this day. Back at ya: where did Post Office Red come from?!

As I say, t'is all in the book!

Chox
23rd April 2011, 12:51
What "official drawings" ? The red used in the roundel has always been referred-to as either Roundel Red or Post Office Red since it was first introduced post-war. I have heard the term "Cherry Red" before but only informally, not as part of any official paint specs. What drawings are you referring to?

Lee Howard
23rd April 2011, 12:59
Chox

The official Westland drawings, of which I have copies. Check out BS381C-538 for yourself if you don't believe me. The first drawing that comes neatly to hand is that for the Wasp, and whilst some (but certainly not all) manufacturers list this as "Post Office Red Cherry" it is quite clearly referenced on these and all other aircraft sources I've seen as "Cherry Red". Believe me, I've been through this quite thoroughly - AP970, AP119-0901-0C, AFOs, CAFOs, Modification registers and leaflets...... My sources are all listed in the book, together with descriptions of roundels, their tints, ARTF paints etc.

Now, having stated my sources, perhaps you'd like to state what yours are? I'd be interested to see how 'official' they are, as opposed to perhaps those pumped out by modelling magazines over the years?

Lee

Chox
23rd April 2011, 13:05
How bizarre. Maybe it's a Westland thing then? I know the term is often used by commercial companies for that spec number but not for RAF/FAA aircraft. Ask Dick Ward, Richard Caruana or Paul Lucas - I'm sure they'll all tell you the same that post-war the roundel colour has always been Post Office Red. I honestly have no idea where the term Cherry Red might have come from.

PS - you mention model magazines and I agree it's true that they do sometimes perpetuate myths, but in this case I have never seen any use of the term "Cherry Red", other than on a few ill-informed modelling forum threads. In fairness to the modelling magazines (well, some of them at least!) they are often the only sources of reliable information, especially when it comes from the likes of the afore-mentioned authors and of course the late Ian Huntley. Just because a lot of the information in modelling magazines can often be complete rubbish, it doesn't mean that it all is, and in some respects it has been the modelling press that has enabled reliable information on colour schemes to survive. Plenty of museum exhibits have been faithfully reproduced in accurate colours and markings thanks to modelling research!

Lee Howard
23rd April 2011, 13:12
How bizarre. Maybe it's a Westland thing then? Ask Dick Ward, Richard Caruana or Paul Lucas - I'm sure they'll all tell you the same that post-war the roundel colour has always been Post Office Red. I honestly have no idea where the term Cherry Red might have come from.

But that was my reason for including a section in the book - to try and dispell any colloquial terms which may have been used in the past and revert to the original documentation. I'm not decrying the work of those who have produced the modelling magazines over the years - far from it. Had he not died tragically young I would be sat here typing this right now just 100yds from where the late Mike Keep once lived. It is a constant source of regret that he is no longer with us as he undoubtedly was the best in his field. What wonders he could now be producing with the benefit of modern technology!

The issue of the dayglo paint finish caused me no end of angst. And whilst I'm not saying that what I've put together is the be-all and end-all, it may hopefully serve to clarify a few things and maybe even bring forth some additional new information.

Chox
23rd April 2011, 13:28
Well it sounds vaguely trivial but in all seriousness, if you have uncovered some official specs that specify Cherry Red rather than Post Office Red, I hope you'll make sure they are included in your book. You might have uncovered something significant there if it contradicts all that has been published previously, especially if there's any clue as to where the term has come from - and when!

Lee Howard
23rd April 2011, 13:43
There's no contradiction from what I've seen - they all specify Cherry Red. It's everyone else who states Post Office Red.......yet they don't state where THEY got it from!

Care to divulge your sources?

Chox
23rd April 2011, 13:51
Well that's a little bit unfair as I'm sure that any of the afore-mentioned historians would be more than happy to state what sources they have. I'm not suggesting that your information is wrong (as I said, you might have discovered something very interesting there) but at the same time I wouldn't take that to mean that "accepted wisdom" has therefore somehow been wrong for all these years. I don't have anything to hand which would interest you on this matter (inexplicably I don't sit on a pile of paint spec. documents - doh!) but if you like I could ask Paul and Richard about this? Anyone know if Dick Ward has embraced the internet yet?!

Lee Howard
23rd April 2011, 14:01
Chox

There was nothing disingenuous about my reply. I have the greatest of respect for those who plied the same lonely furrow before me. What I asked was what your sources were, seeing as you point blank refuted my comment that Cherry Red was what the official documentation showed. I'm curious, that's all, and more than happy to review anything I may have put into print as long as any counter-argument is backed up with something I can go on. If being fair is an issue, then surely it's only fair to tell someone they are wrong if they have the evidence to back their claims up with?

Let's not go overboard with this. I feel thread-creep is upon us!

Lee

Chox
23rd April 2011, 15:58
Indeed, I would imagine that most of the forum readers couldn't possibly care less about such trivia, but I'm certainly interested!

As I said, I don't have any colour scheme references to hand (in fact I have no references on anything at present - it's all stored away, but that's another ugly story!) but if you're in any doubt as to whether the red was indeed always specified as Post Office Red, then I could certainly ask around and see what documentation can be found to show where and when? As I said before, I have no reason to doubt the accepted wisdom on this matter, not have I any reason to doubt that you have located documentation which evidently specified Cherry Red. Thing that interests me is where this name might have come from and when - and why?! I'm mystified! I suspect Paul Lucas might be the person who is best qualified to offer some thoughts on this subject so I'll ask him and post-up any information if I can find any.

Sorry to everyone else who must think we're completely bonkers discussing such matters!

bms44
23rd April 2011, 15:58
I am (or was) an 'appy little Sea Prince,
didn't have a care,
...busy taking baby matelots for a jolly in the air.

I was even quite contented doing circuits and bumps,
...helping build the hours ,for two-and-a-half ringer chumps.

I never saw no Day-glo, Cherry red or Titty pink
... no Signal red, nor Post Office, wasn't paid enough to think,
but come the time for my annual paint job, the choice was a no-brainer,
...the Chief P.O. would open up the drums....silver dope, and Yellow (Trainer).

Whisky Papa Three-OH-Niner (R.I.P) :(

Robert Whitton
23rd April 2011, 19:14
...the Chief P.O. would open up the drums....silver dope, and Yellow (Trainer).

Whisky Papa Three-OH-Niner (R.I.P) :(

Ah but what kind of yellow. ;)

bms44
23rd April 2011, 19:27
Robert, Oh, you are a tease!...take your pick! :D Regards, Brian (Clue 4 Across, 3 Down.)

old eagle
23rd April 2011, 20:36
Don't know whose pic, but same time/place as BMS ??

And another, this one (where?) in Oct 1978

bms44
23rd April 2011, 21:20
Don't know whose pic, but same time/place as BMS ??

Same time, same aircraft,(WP309), different views, but same photographer ,old eagle = me, - bms44 ; HMS Condor 'At Home' day' 1960's. (Suggest Culdrose for the other shot.) Where are you pagen01?

Robert Whitton
23rd April 2011, 21:24
Robert, Oh, you are a tease!...take your pick! :D Regards, Brian (Clue 4 Across, 3 Down.)

I think there is something wrong with the colours you have posted. The red does not look red. Have you had this out in bright sunlight for 40 years or has it been inside a book. :dev2:

I used to have a chart like that but threw it out because Humbrol 30 does not match "Dark Green"

bms44
23rd April 2011, 21:38
I think there is something wrong with the colours you have posted. The red does not look red. Have you had this out in bright sunlight for 40 years or has it been inside a book. :dev2:
...almost correct Robert, it's been a book for 51 years...it think it was Day-Glo Or Cherry or pomygranit or summat else when I first had it! Now it's the same colour as our brick sh*t- , ahemm, out-house :diablo:

TwinOtter23
23rd April 2011, 21:45
Some background history to DayGlo (http://live.dgl.clients.camao.de/who_we_are/our_story) plus lots of background detail in the field of 'colour science' and pigments!!

AMB
23rd April 2011, 23:35
The Wessex HU.5s were always "Signal Red"
...oh no they weren't Lee! QED!


http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n184/Amoskeeto/XS491WessexHAR5Lee-on-SolentviaMF.jpg

The HU.5s only changed from dayglo to Signal Red just before they were retired.


Then of course, there's the inevitable problem of photographic reproduction - cameras never capture dayglow properly.

Not quite true Tim, it is not the 'camera' that doesn't capture dayglo properly but the 'film'.
Anything other than Kodachrome is suspect, but having shot Kodachrome slides since 1966, I am very happy that I have dayglo captured accurately every time.



As for FAA aircraft, dayglow was replaced (as has been stated previously) by red paint. Signal Red in fact (although the roundel colour remained Post Office Red. The red paint lasts much longer than dayglow and remains in use to this day (Sea Kings, etc.). However, the application of red didn't begin until the Sea Princes had been retired. I seem to recall that one or two Princes did receive red paint after retirement (on fire dumps etc.) but in service? Nope. Same applies to the Meteor T7. It was black (or silver) with dayglow (not red) panels.

Quite correct and here is the entire fleet of 750 Squadron put up for the 1975 Culdrose Air Day....all with dayglo!
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n184/Amoskeeto/750SqnRNSeaPrincesCuldroseJUL75.jpg
If anyone is interested in preserving aircraft authentically, then by repainting any aircraft with red paint, when it wore dayglo orange in service is trying to change history and I certainly frown on preservationists that can't get it right!

Discendo Duces
24th April 2011, 00:04
AMB

I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement.

There may be practical reasons for not repainting a preserved airframe in the Dayglo it wore in service, and using plain red instead, but to pretend that the new colours are entirely accurate is misleading.

DD

pagen01
24th April 2011, 09:57
(Suggest Culdrose for the other shot.) Where are you pagen01?

It is Culdrose Brian.

Wow this thread took off!
Actually although the paint discussion may seem trivial it is great to get to the bottom of the subject and find original specs etc.
The Chox argument is a classic case of relying on past published information to much and assuming it to be gospel, an easy trap for any of us to fall in.
I know this is a subject that Lee thoroughly researches - will be great to see the book.
The paint issue is often more complex than we first think (witness Sky types!) and we tend to think only particular shades were used while it turns out that may not be the case.

Despite the last few posts I definitely remember some Sea Princes' flying in the reddish scheme, it might only have been a handful of the final fleet in '79 I don't know.
I have also seen a picture of Sea Prince with a Wessex and the former is red compared with the orange on the latter, I wish I knew where it was right now, but believe it may have been in a Culdrose airday booklet.
If I had to take a guess at why some were refinished in the darker colours it would be that the orange to red process was already taking place on other types and that it was easier when a couple of Princes' had to be refinished that they used the same paint stocks.

It has been stated previously that during paint rub down that the reddish colour was found on the Gatwick Sea Princes, I do believe them and that they aren't bluffing just to defend a repaint in those colours - to suggest that they are trying to re-write history I would think is slightly insulting to Peter & Milt and the guys.

Nice little poem btw Brian!

WebPilot
24th April 2011, 10:51
Pagen01; well said. It would be nice to have everything falling into nice neat little boxes, but that's not the case in the real world. Engineering sections often make do with what they have available, or use their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the laid down standards.

Some of the photos of the Sea Princes shown here certainly do not show a standard shade of dayglo, even with due allowance for film, lighting conditions and so on. It could be that, in the finest traditions of the FAA, to keep the fleet immaculately smart in their last days they were given a coat of red over the fading dayglo - certainly I don't see red in that shot, but I don't see dayglo either. The paint in the formation shot looks very fresh with none of the exposure weathering one normally sees with dayglo.

It's a theory, anyway.

bms44
24th April 2011, 11:19
A little diversion, but still on Day-Glo, herewith an extract from my scrapbook ( too many moons ago to admit to) ref. the finish on JP's 1964 : the sample is of the finish applied to them, more orange than the later reds, hope it comes over in the print. Kodakchrome? Out of pocket- money reach for this youngster, hence the illustration!

TwinOtter23
24th April 2011, 13:33
.... Dayglow is a real headache as some of the posts here indicate. Adrian will doubtless confirm that in the case of the beloved Jet Provost, at least two distinct shades of dayglow were used at various times, together with stick-on strips for quite some time. I do miss the "dayglow days" very much. I think the colour is inevitably associated with the halcyon days of the RAF/FAA when the UK was still bristling with lots of exotic aircraft... all gone now sadly....
Which trademarked DayGlo brushing paint (or sprayed versions) do you require Neon Red; Rocket Red; Fire Orange; Blaze Orange check the PDF specs here! (http://www.dayglo.com/world_of_color/technical_bulletins/paints_and_coatings)

A lot of shading effects will also depend on whether the proper primers and finish coatings have been utilised!

You could also get into DayGlo tapes if you wanted but that's another can of worms!!

TwinOtter23
24th April 2011, 16:27
DayGlo merely acknowledges an international recognised and registered trademark!

bms44
25th April 2011, 12:16
Come on lads ( you know who you are) let's keep this thread light-hearted and friendly, a place for sharing info, learning from the posts, which have a wonderful habit of unearthing new and often long-forgotten facts and photographs, and encouraging the exchanges and the banter. We all have our differing views, but equally the right (hard-earned, and fought-for) to express them whether we may be considered right or wrong, by others.It's too easy sometimes to post withering and unfriendly comments of a personal nature : not necessary, keep it light, don't spoil this wonderful opportunity to communicate with other guys and gals who share, at whatever level, and for whatever reason, the interest and enjoyment of a wonderful hobby, and dare I say it, even passion, for aviation and its rich heritage. :)

Robert Whitton
25th April 2011, 16:46
Remember folks its only a hobby.
I have learnt that sometimes its best to not make immediate responses or at time any responses to things I may disagree with. Time puts things in perspective and life is too short to cause upset to youself or anyone else.

I just wont read some threads on this forum when I see them degenerating That is a pity as there may be some interesting items i miss but that's my decision.

Can we keep this thread to Sea Princes and perhaps some more photos of the old ladies!
:):)

AMB
25th April 2011, 18:42
Well said bms44 and Bob. Although 'Chox' has not been very tactful is expressing his views, what he says about Sea Princes not being repainted with 'red' instead of DayGlo (not 'dayglow' Tim!) is quite correct. It is indeed a myth of the memory or misinterpretation of a colour photo that has perpetuated this and only good colour photographic evidence can dispel this in a positive and friendly manner to prove once and for all that Sea Princes had DayGlo on them (and not red paint) right up to their last day of service. This is no disrespect to those that repainted the two aircraft at the Gatwick Aviation Museum as their interpretation of 'finding red paint' was no doubt 'faded red dayglo paint' and they just used the word 'red' as generic. I am pretty sure that due to the nature of DayGlo, it was decided to repaint them with 'red' paint for durability against the elements and a certain 'artistic licence' was invoked. To prove that these aircraft wore DayGlo to the end, I herewith provide you with good Kodachrome slides of four different Sea Princes, clearly photographed after being withdrawn from use and before anyone had repainted them! Let's look at the evidence - here are the two Gatwick Museum examples before repaint - clearly the aircraft are light grey and faded Dayglo orange
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n184/Amoskeeto/2princ.jpg

Next up is WF118 at Staverton in Sept 80 registered G-DACA - still clearly wearing Dayglo orange
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n184/Amoskeeto/G-DACAExWF118SeaPrinceMk1ExRN750SqnStaverton1SEPT80. jpg

Think this is a one-off? Okay here is WM739 now registered G-TACA also clearly wearing Dayglo orange, although without military TLC starting to look patchy!
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n184/Amoskeeto/G-TACAExWM739SeaPrinceT1ExRN750SqnStaverton1NOV85.jp g

Still not convinced? Okay yet another one - this time WF125 on the fire dump at Preddanack - very faded Dayglo and not a sign of any 'red paint'.
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n184/Amoskeeto/WF125SeaPrinceT1RNPredannick1989viaMF.jpg

Finally, as if you still need convincing, yet another one in the form of WP321 which flew in the 1980s as G-BRFC - now if that's not very faded DayGlo, I'll go and suck an orange! Not a drop of 'Signal Red' or 'Cherry Red' paint in sight!

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n184/Amoskeeto/G-BRFCExWP321SeaPrinceT1ExRN750SqnBadminton21JUL84AM B.jpg

David Burke
25th April 2011, 18:48
Not even any 'Signal Red' - 'Cherry Red' or 'Post Office red' in the roundel ???

David Burke
25th April 2011, 19:21
Spraying 'day glo' is difficult safely in a outside environment and has a limited life outside due to the effects of the sun. I would say the vast majority of people who visit the museum dont care if its red or orange.
Undoubtedly the majority of visitors will appreciate the effort in preserving these machines and realise that the admission on the door very likely doesnt cover anything like the cost of running the place .

So in essence whilst it would be nice to have every aircraft in its correct scheme - the effort in doing that pales into insignificance compared to the cost and effort involved in rescuing and restoring these machines

WebPilot
25th April 2011, 19:38
Well said David and AMB; better a well presented machine in the 'wrong' colour than a perfectly correct one that needs disproportionate attention to stop it becoming tatty or taking time away from other more vital preservation work. Nothing puts the general public off a collection more quickly than the sight of apparently derelict machines and if that means it offends the petty minded armchair experts, well, frankly, tough!

Meanwhile here's another in-service shot dating from 1978, just to keep the interest going. It's dayglo as can be seen by the tonal difference between the red in the roundel and the high viz areas, but it is a very red shade of dayglo, compared with the dayglo used on Gnats and Chipmunks, for example.

mjr
25th April 2011, 19:41
Spraying 'day glo' is difficult safely in a outside environment and has a limited life outside due to the effects of the sun. I would say the vast majority of people who visit the museum dont care if its red or orange.
Undoubtedly the majority of visitors will appreciate the effort in preserving these machines and realise that the admission on the door very likely doesnt cover anything like the cost of running the place .

So in essence whilst it would be nice to have every aircraft in its correct scheme - the effort in doing that pales into insignificance compared to the cost and effort involved in rescuing and restoring these machines

and a "doer" speaks!...... spot on David.

mjr
25th April 2011, 19:44
Well said David and AMB; better a well presented machine in the 'wrong' colour than a perfectly correct one that needs disproportionate attention to stop it becoming tatty or taking time away from other more vital preservation work. Nothing puts the general public off a collection more quickly than the sight of apparently derelict machines and if that means it offends the petty minded armchair experts, well, frankly, tough!

Meanwhile here's another in-service shot dating from 1978, just to keep the interest going. It's dayglo, but it's a very red shade of dayglo, compared with the dayglo used on Gnats and Chipmunks, for example.


And that is exactly what we found on both machines. hence we rreplicated that with ordinary Red. The correct "RED" dayglo is/was some years ago in the region of £90 a litre. Re-applying that every 3 months made no financial sense at all.

Robert Whitton
25th April 2011, 19:51
AMB.
What a beautiful set of photos WP321 in particular!

pagen01
25th April 2011, 20:13
...and only good colour photographic evidence can dispel this in a positive and friendly manner to prove once and for all that Sea Princes had DayGlo on them (and not red paint) right up to their last day of service. This is no disrespect to those that repainted the two aircraft at the Gatwick Aviation Museum as their interpretation of 'finding red paint' was no doubt 'faced red dayglo paint' and they just used the word 'red' as generic.

Think this is a one-off? Okay here is WM739 now registered G-TACA also clearly wearing Dayglo orange, although without military TLC starting to look patchy!

Not a fuorescent orange I hope!:eek:

Sorry but I'm still not convinced that all Sea Princes' were finished in fluorescent orange, and some of the images posted haven't helped.

The Wessexs' look like flat orange (like International Orange), the Princes' in formation look like Orangy Red, and in the quoted post WM739 looks like flat orange.
At best this shows how dodgy it is relying on any film used to give us a definitive answer. The best hope is APs and paint guides of the period, but there can even be exceptions with those.

I'm not saying that the red is bright red as in RAF trainers but an orangy red, like a flat verison of fluorescent red orange used on some SAR machines, as in this pic of a WF118 here, http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/372288.html, the colour isn't far of the roundal red or the Provosts behind.

To clarify the Gatwick issue, they are saying that they rubbed down the fluo scheme and found red underneath, so it was on the aircraft - yes?
Anyway, they are doing a darned sight more in preserving these lovely old aircraft than we are!:)

Lee Howard
25th April 2011, 20:32
...oh no they weren't Lee! QED!

:confused: Doh! Should learn to read what I write! Yes, I did make mention of HU.5s retaining the fluorescent scheme initially for a short while (Pg 347). Quite right! Of course I also omitted to mention here (albeit covered in the book - including a photo) the Wessex HU.5s of Red Dragon Flight which had fluorescent markings applied.

To (hopefully) bring the discussion of reds to a close, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what the name used is....it's the BS381C tint reference number which is the important bit to get right. Post-war roundel reds should be BS381C-538.

keithnewsome
25th April 2011, 20:57
Is this .... WF128 original ? my, untweaked, photo from Flixton museum.

Keith.

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii58/keithnewsome/flixton/DSC_0117.jpg

pagen01
25th April 2011, 21:11
Very nice Keith, that is in the communications scheme of one of the Station Flights, nice to see a preserved Sea Prince in the non training scheme.


This desk top model on Ebay made me laugh, http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Percival-P-57-Sea-Prince-T1-UK-Navy-Wood-Airplane-Model-/380223263010?pt=UK_ToysGames_ModelKits_ModelKits_J N&hash=item5887129122
Looks really realistic, until you realise that it is a cut out photo of a real Sea Prince attached to a model stand!
This is what your £90+ really gets you http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/T-1-Sea-Prince-Percival-Airplane-Desktop-Wood-Model-Big-/120493881367?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c0dfeb817

WebPilot
25th April 2011, 23:31
It must be said…the wooden version is painted…red!

bms44
26th April 2011, 10:18
Is this .... WF128 original ? my, untweaked, photo from Flixton museum.

Keith.

Keith, it would appear that the finish now carried by WF128 was not the original on delivery to Flixton! It had quite a chequered history before it ended up there, and being an anorak, the current coding font size is questionable, and probably spurious. (The black colour is correct though! )

See attached, and note the orange Day-Glo on the fin! :diablo:(Credit Malcolm Clarke)

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 10:27
The point regarding the general public has been missed. The casual visitor generally could not care whether an aircraft is in the correct shade or not but as any heritage professional will tell you, unkempt, scruffy and amateur displays kill visitor numbers - as so many under funded and under resourced collections have found to their cost when their collections got beyond their ability to keep up; the Blackpool Vulcan, the Lasham group, the list goes on. As the paint fades, tyres deflate and the weeds grow, visitor numbers decline. Fact. Presentation is vital; correct shade or even correct colour is not.

pagen01
26th April 2011, 10:32
It's nice to see it in that scheme though and it appears to be the only preserved example not to be in training colours (apart from WM735!!).
I don't begrude a change in scheme.
I see from other pics that it has HF on the tail, so I assume it is painted to represent a Hal Far Stn Flt aircraft.
Generaly the C.2s were for this use but T.1s were also seconded to the role, as seen in the pictures in an earlier post.

BTW any updates on sole surving C.1 WF137 or once airworthy WP321?

bms44
26th April 2011, 10:42
It occurred to me after posting the Flixton Photo, that I was also falling into the trap of being ultra-critical : when you see the state of WF128 on arrival, I'm sure a small team of dedicated helpers spent a great deal of time, effort and sweat getting it back to the present condition. All credit to them, and my apologies for being pedantic in my post. Good to see such aircraft being saved for all to enjoy. :o Brian

TwinOtter23
26th April 2011, 10:57
.... Good to see such aircraft being saved for all to enjoy....
That’s a very good summation of the situation - at least by getting some protection onto an airframe you’re prolonging its survival, so that one day, when resources permit you can get everything ‘correct’ and to the satisfaction of the enthusiast!

As has been stated before the vast majority of visitors (i.e. those that provide the bulk of the funding to keep museums open and functioning) care very little about the application of authentic colour schemes to the exhibits. The normal priorities are firstly the quality of the toilets; secondly the tidiness of the site; thirdly the overall appearance of the airframes. These were all key factors identified in recent survey work Newark has undertaken for its current development projects!

AMB
26th April 2011, 11:00
Not a fuorescent orange I hope!:eek:

Sorry but I'm still not convinced that all Sea Princes' were finished in fluorescent orange, and some of the images posted haven't helped.



Oh dear, I post pics showing a vast variety of Sea Princes in their final days of service and beyond and still some people are unconvinced!:(
The shade of Dayglo (= flurorecent) paint may have changed over the years(I have slides of Sea Princes with red and orange Dayglo over the years) but they are still Dayglo...and I've seen enough of them to know the difference!
It has been clearly stated that the Gatwick Sea Princes have been repainted plain red for practical and durability reasons. I'm satisfied with that and will leave it there having done 'my bit' for this thread.

lauriebe
26th April 2011, 11:13
I see from other pics that it has HF on the tail, so I assume it is painted to represent a Hal Far Stn Flt aircraft.
Generaly the C.2s were for this use but T.1s were also seconded to the role, as seen in the pictures in an earlier post.

BTW any updates on sole surving C.1 WF137 or once airworthy WP321?

pagen01, WF128 was at Hal Far with 750 Sqn from 12.10.59 to 5.7.65. During that time it carried the codes '676/HF' and '673/HF'. That info from the A-B book "Fleet Air Arm Fixed-wing Aircraft since 1946". Looking forward to adding Lee's book, which is already on order, to that.

Looking through the internet for images of the Sea Prince I came across this page:

http://percivalaircraft.com/

Your post seems to indicate that the aircraft, WP321, is no longer airworthy. Has this company ceased trading as well?

In the photo of WP321 in that link, to my mind, there is no doubt as to the colour. Call it Post Office, Cherry, whatever, the manufacturers still agree that it is red. It is the same colour that I recall seeing on the BRNC Chipmunks at Roborough in the early 70s. I do not dispute the fact that it is a dayglo type paint, but it is certainly not orange.

AMB
26th April 2011, 11:34
Your post seems to indicate that the aircraft, WP321, is no longer airworthy. Has this company ceased trading as well?

In the photo of WP321 in that link, to my mind, there is no doubt as to the colour. Call it Post Office, Cherry, whatever, the manufacturers still agree that it is red. It is the same colour that I recall seeing on the BRNC Chipmunks at Roborough in the early 70s. I do not dispute the fact that it is a dayglo type paint, but it is certainly not orange.

Oh gawd - here we go again! This is exactly the problem we are up against.
WP321 as G-BRFC is currently being made airworthy again (and may well fly this year) by Andrew Dixon at Bournemouth and he has chosen to repaint it 'red' - yes plain red, maybe Crown Gloss or Dulux! Andrew has confirmed this is only for durability reasons and not authenticity as the aircraft is not hangared, so when you see it fly, don't anyone dare say " there I told you it was 'red'!" ;) If enough people keep repainting preserved aircraft in the wrong colours, they will eventually change history unless all the earlier evidence is maintained.

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 11:35
Thanks Adrian. So to recap, the red shade is authentic rather than being due to "lighting", self evidently as there are photos both indoor and out showing the same deep red dayglo.

Chox
26th April 2011, 11:40
The point regarding the general public has been missed.

Not at all - I addressed it in my reply. I agree with you that most visitors don't give a toss what colours an aircraft wears. Naturally, they would much rather see clean and tidy aeroplanes than a pile of scrap. But this attitude completely fails to address the whole purpose of preservation.

Fine to say that the aircraft is protected but to overlook the paint scheme it actually wore is to effectively only partially preserve an exhibit. It's only one step from leaving a rudder off or sticking tip tanks on an aircraft that didn't carry them (*ahem*)... There are always good reasons for doing things like this but it completely devalues the purpose of a museum.

I don't have any issue with the owner of any aircraft doing what the hell he likes with it. Likewise, I don't have any issue with museums catering for the general public. But if they are to be museums (rather than amusement centres) we can't go down this road of sacrificing authenticity in the interests of "prettiness." That is just crazy.

It all sounds rather like the "Flambards Experience"... You start-off with a lovely collection of local aircraft, then the tourists' entertainment demands are catered-for, and then the aircraft are slowly abandoned in order to entertain the public still further, until all you have left is a vapid theme park for screaming kids and dumb adults. Commercially-speaking, it makes perfect sense no doubt, but in terms of preserving aviation history it stinks.

Anyway, as I said before, if applying fluorescent paint is such an issue, then why nor repaint the Princes silver with yellow bands? They would be in the colours which they first wore, and be suitably tidy for Joe Public. Everybody is happy?


Adrian, the above news doesn't surprise me. Maybe it'll be Red Bull colours next? Here we go again...

AMB
26th April 2011, 11:43
Thanks Adrian. So to recap, the red shade is authentic rather than being due to "lighting", self evidently as there are photos both indoor and out showing the same deep red dayglo.

No! The only thing authentic is the paint demarcation areas and other markings. DayGlo/Fluorescent paint is affected by the sun and fades quite quickly. I think a compromise could be made by repainting in 'orange' rather than 'red' paint, but I do understand the problems of maintaining the colour.
I look forward to seeing WP321 take to the air again soon, knowing it is in the wrong colour but looking smart.

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 11:55
Amb - But you did say that red dayglo was used? I am talking about shade here rather than the "glo" qualities of the paint when I say "authentic". Clearly dayglo is dayglo and dulux gloss isn't but a red shade is a red shade!


Chox- I know what you are saying but the reality is that minor liberties have to be taken for the greater good. I think using a different colour is some way from turning it into a themepark.

pagen01
26th April 2011, 12:12
BTW I've just done a quick search on paint finishes used by the FAA in that period, looks like we've been down a very similar path before, http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=100971&page=9&highlight=fluoresecent

lauriebe
26th April 2011, 12:15
pagen01, sorry, I misread your post.

Re Adrian's formation shot earlier. I have looked at that on three different monitors. The colour stays the same across each of those. To me it is red, as are other shots taken at Culdrose at approximately the same time. As pagen01 mentions in photos with a dayglo orange colour there is a distinct difference.

TwinOtter23
26th April 2011, 12:26
As was posted earlier http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1735514&postcount=45 what shade (colour) of DayGlo do you want to select today?

Neon Red
Rocket Red
Fire Orange
Blaze Orange

TwinOtter23
26th April 2011, 12:38
... or sticking tip tanks on an aircraft that didn't carry them (*ahem*)......
:rolleyes: How many times must I tell you .... PLEASE take this up with Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace Limited here's their phone number 01223 373737

AMB
26th April 2011, 12:41
Burgger me, halleluja, there was a red used!! I've (and essentially Peter and Milt) been called a lyer across two threads (despite providing pics of two SAR machines showing orange and red/orange finishes) and been quite viscously argued against about this very issue, but it's ok now, the experts say so!
Wether it is painted flat or in fluo red/orange matters not one jot, the colour is basically right and it's more durable to finish the aircraft in flat paint.
God speed everyone here who has actually done something about preserving these aircraft.:)

Blimey you ARE a hard nut to crack! Not sure whether you are just plain stubborn in the face of adversity, argumentative or just colour blind! How many photos do we have to post to try and make you see the difference between 'DayGlo' and 'plain red' paint? Right, here is my oldest Sea Prince slide of WP313 at Odiham during Farnborough week in September 1968,taken when it was newly painted with Dayglo and as you can see it was more 'fire orange' when first applied, but still 'dayglo' and not plain red and until you can see the difference, you will remain at odds with Tim and me.
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n184/Amoskeeto/WP313SeaPrinceT1RN750SqnOdihamSEP68.jpg

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 14:35
Pagen01 -I wouldn't worry about someones 'status' being enhanced simply because they are published. After all Jeffrey Archer has published lots of books and no one believes a word he says

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 14:59
Only Adrian didnt say only one colour was used. " a range from orange to red". I'm only seeing tedious rants from one person - along with yet another bludgeoning of your opinion on what museums should do. its getting very childish and doing nothing to enhance the forum so please desist.

AMB
26th April 2011, 15:37
Only Adrian didnt say only one colour was used. " a range from orange to red". I'm only seeing tedious rants from one person - along with yet another bludgeoning of your opinion on what museums should do. its getting very childish and doing nothing to enhance the forum so please desist.

Exactly! I can't add any more to what Tim has said! If Pagen01 can't see how different plain red paint looks from the correct dayglo/fluorescent colour and insists that 'red is red', then we can't go on banging our heads against a brick wall. Finally, if you want to see published examples of different shades of Dayglo in colour photos, I have just published a book on the Jet Provost in the WARPAINT books series for modellers

http://www.warpaint-books.com/

As mentioned already on this thread, the RAF 'painted' dayglo was a 'Blaze Orange' in the early '60s to be replaced by 'Fire Orange' dayglo paper strips,but that needs to be another thread if you want to debate that!

To quote an advertising phrase, "The Future's bright, the future's ......! ";)

Lima1
26th April 2011, 15:54
I feel a bit dubious about dipping my toe in the water with this one as I never got the chance to photograph these aircraft when they were at Culdrose. During the 1970's I lived in North Cornwall, not far from Tintagel; this must have been a regular route for 750 Squadron as they flew overhead on an almost daily basis. Apart from the wonderful noise I do remember the dayglo patches which always seemed orange to me.

The only two colour photo's I have to hand at the moment are:
A Mike Hall image published recently (may have been this site or UKAR?) showing a Sea Prince at St Mawgan Air Day (1976)...definately dayglo orange.

A lovely photo in the colour centre section of Geoff Wakehams Culdrose book showing a Sea Prince flying next to a Jetstream, here the orange shows out really well against the red of the Jetstream.

One thing I do remember when passing Culdrose one day was seeing a Landrover TACR1 Crash truck next to a Sea Prince, back in the 70's these vehicles were painted dayglo orange and it was the same shade (although slightly faded) as that on the Sea Prince.

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 16:02
With respect, Pagen01 isn't saying that and we seem to have introduced a new set of goalposts. The original discussion was on the actual shade of dayglo, dayglo was a given I thought. We seem to have (mostly) come to an agreement that varying shades of dayglo were used contrary to choxs continued belief. Obviously dayglo is different from simple gloss but a similar colour shade is a fair proxy for the purpose. No of course its not the same but noone claimed it was and its a decent and honest attempt to replicate the original as well as possible given the circumstances. . For my money the colour used is too red - it should be slightly more orange. But that's me being picky now!

Peter Mills
26th April 2011, 16:20
OK, I wasn't going to make any more comments on this subject, but!

The level of arrogance and inaccurate information is now at an all time high.

To help you understand I'll say this slowly.

Paint stripped Sea Prince.
Found six or seven layers of paint and primer.
Some of layers were DayGlo, lowest layer, that nearest the metal was red.
For AMBs benefit; not orange, not DayGlo, not orangelike but red, as in red. Please don't make me repeat it again, you've already worn that one out.
That's not from a book,third hand, dodgy photos but actually on the airframe.
It doesn't matter how many times you put up a picture showing a Prince in its current top coat colour, it does not show the colours that are beneath the top coat. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? We are not saying that all airframes were in this colour, but this one it seems was.

Chox please try to get the facts right, I understand your natural desire to be right 100% of the time but sadly you are not. Just a couple of corrections, I never called you an "armchair expert", I believe that was my colleague MJR. You're wrong about the Meteor also, the colours it wears were painted when it was at North Weald, a little simple research would have shown you that. Still lets not facts ruining a good slagging eh! You appear to have decided to try to denigrate GAMs effort to preserve airframes. I could go on picking to pieces your inaccurate assertions but I don't know what it would gain. To be absolutely honest personally I really don't actually care about your views, amusing as some are, we will continue to try to maintain and breath some life in these old birds no matter what colour they are. If you don't like what we are doing, well to quote Chox, "tough". Actually I think we may have some fun with colour schemes this year! The Vixen could be a good candidate, she's due some remedial work.

The many visitors to the museum (–noun
a building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed.) all seem to be pleased and are very complimentary about what we are doing.

We always pleased to welcome anyone to the museum to wonder at our oddly painted collection, and I mean anyone.

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 19:16
In what way was Peter's post "nasty"? He even had the good grace to say that you are still welcome at Gatwick despite the drivel you have posted in this thread!

I think that post should be removed by the mods and the thread locked. It's quite clearly at odds with Forum rules.

FoxVC10
26th April 2011, 20:22
Chox can you give me the money for the correct paint and the equipment to use on all the aircraft that are painted in-correctly. I will gladly go around and paint the said problem aircraft.

I will also require a regular sum to maintain the paint in the required pristine condition, as I believe that the DayGlo paint was done away with (in the US at least) because it faded rather rapidly.


I look forward to seeing the Lancaster in pink, I think it would look rather nice.

AMB
26th April 2011, 20:35
Paint stripped Sea Prince.
Found six or seven layers of paint and primer.
Some of layers were DayGlo, lowest layer, that nearest the metal was red.
For AMBs benefit; not orange, not DayGlo, not orangelike but red, as in red. Please don't make me repeat it again, you've already worn that one out.

Thanks for clarifying that Peter. So if it was the colour nearest the metal, that would make it the primer, or undercoat and not any final top coat!
I rest my (and Tim's case)!

richw_82
26th April 2011, 20:48
Peter seems to know the difference between primer and paint, and isn't the etch primer that usually goes onto aircraft yellow(ish)?

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 21:29
And the fact is as Adrian confirmed *, that sea princes were finished with dayglo that varied in shade from orange to red as we said all along. Not just orange as you maintained.

* "I have slides of Sea Princes with red and orange Dayglo"

David Burke
26th April 2011, 21:50
I dont really think the two examples really fit in with todays world. Not many museums that I can think of just aim to 'amuse' the public -those days are largely gone . I would suggest inform- educate and maybe entertain would be within the aims of most museums. Within this is the desire to keep exhibits in reasonable condition -often within tight budgets. So where there might be compromises - it could take the form of hardier paints to protect for longer which might not be truelly representive but offer a longer life for the machine.

Whilst this might offend enthusiasts sentiments - any museum that relys on keeping them happy isnt going to survive as they are just a tiny fraction of museum visitors.

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 22:07
Whilst this might offend enthusiasts sentiments - any museum that relys on keeping them happy isnt going to survive as they are just a tiny fraction of museum visitors.

Absolutely. If people going to carp about the Wrong paint, then using modern fabric on flying vintage aircraft, or other non-original fit is equally heinous, surely. The fact is that compromises have to be made to make these artifacts useable or long lived and provided they are honest changes, then I and 99.9999% of the rest of the population - enthusiast or not - have no problem with that.

richw_82
26th April 2011, 23:19
No, it's red.

Chox
26th April 2011, 23:21
Not unless they've repainted it old boy.

richw_82
26th April 2011, 23:23
If its the Gatwick one, correct. Six or seven times.

But underneath it's still red.

Did you check them all? No? Thought not.



Having given this some thought, I'm going to leave you to yourself. I can't be bothered with arguing with somebody who clearly has a learning issue.

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 23:26
No, bad chox. You were getting there. Just go and look at the one in cobham hall and marvel in its red hued goodness. It has a hint of orange but like Adrian said dayglo comes in many shades. Just like other paints.

Chox
26th April 2011, 23:28
Ahh, so it hasn't been repainted then, as I assumed. That'll be fluorescent orange then, same as it always was. Blimey this is hard work.

WebPilot
26th April 2011, 23:43
Could it be you are colour blind I wonder. Red/orange can be hard for those of limited sensitivity to shades. Adrian obviously doesn't suffer from this as he knows that dayglo varies from pale tangerine to blood orange. Or as we also know it, red. Fact I'm afraid. Its only hard because you are trying to fight facts and that's always an uphill battle along with your charming determination to have thelast word.

Chox
26th April 2011, 23:54
It's perfectly simple. The FAAM example is painted in the same standard fluorescent orange we've been talking about all along. You can argue forever but you're wasting your time. I don't think you even know what you're arguing about now, you've been at it for so long! The thread was about Sea Prince colours when they were in service. They were orange. Adrian correctly states that a few (a very few) may (and only may) have been painted in a more red-orange, but this was probably simply poor photo reproduction, and applied only to a handful of aircraft which were photographed many decades ago. The point was (and still is I assume) that the Gatwick pair were painted orange, not red (and not fluorescent red either). Nor were they ever painted red. Both Adrian and I have tried to state this as clearly as we can.

So, by all means carry-on arguing but as even you have said, you can't alter facts...

Anyway, we could solve things neatly by looking at things differently. If you're so convinced that what Adrian and I have said is wrong, and Peter's Princes really were painted red at some stage whilst in FAA service, how about presenting us with so much as one colour photograph to illustrate these mythical beasts? Just one would be fine...

If you can not (and you are welcome to take as many weeks or months as you like) can we then assume that what we have been saying is actually true? Surely, in the absence of even a shred of evidence, we must have actually been right? No, surely not, we're just armchair experts. Mind you, if we are, I'm not sure what that makes everyone else...

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 00:14
At last everybody! - a grudging admission from chox that not all dayglo oranges are exactly the same and some were more red in shade, just as Adrian and everyone has been trying to tell him. It might be *called* orange but it can be a deep red hued orange. You've already dismissed photographic evidence of this as those mythical " lighting conditions" despite the same shade showing in daylight and under hangar lights. Adrian has already said that he has many slides showing orange - orange and red-orange. Its not an isolated example, lighting, film or anything else. I can't make that any plainer. However since you insist here we have a 1972 shot. Even if the reproduction is not 100% true , one only has to look at the lack of tonal variation between the spinners and roundels and the dayglo paint to realise this is more red than orange.

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1215277F.jpg

Lima1
27th April 2011, 01:58
Even if the reproduction is not 100% true , one only has to look at the lack of tonal variation between the spinners and roundels and the dayglo paint to realise this is more red than orange.

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1215277F.jpg

Lovely photo, We've just had a poll of people passing through the office (made nights a bit more interesting):
5 people say Orange
3 people say red orange
1 person said red

Just goes to show how differently people perceive colours, not very helpful really - but it passed a bit of time.

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 07:35
Red / orange perception can be problematic. This may help. The clear difference between the orange and roundel red in the top photo shows how different the sea prince tone is.


http://www.linton-gin.com/aircraft.html

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 09:00
This one is fascinating. Coming through from beneath the degraded dayglo is the old trainer yellow fusalage band and glimpses of them can also be seen on the wings.

http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1104208/

NickB
27th April 2011, 09:18
At last everybody! - a grudging admission from chox that not all dayglo oranges are exactly the same and some were more red in shade, just as Adrian and everyone has been trying to tell him. It might be *called* orange but it can be a deep red hued orange. You've already dismissed photographic evidence of this as those mythical " lighting conditions" despite the same shade showing in daylight and under hangar lights. Adrian has already said that he has many slides showing orange - orange and red-orange. Its not an isolated example, lighting, film or anything else. I can't make that any plainer. However since you insist here we have a 1972 shot. Even if the reproduction is not 100% true , one only has to look at the lack of tonal variation between the spinners and roundels and the dayglo paint to realise this is more red than orange.

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1215277F.jpg

Lovely picture that.

I have to say that to my mind in that picture the Sea Prince is sporting a very fresh coat of what I grew up knowing as 'dayglo orange'. If you look at the contrast between that colour and the red in the centre of the roundell on the fuselage, there is quite a difference.

Would love to see dayglo red/orange (whatever!!) re-introduced - it does look stunning I have to say.

Let's hope Gannet T5 XT752 returns to the air over the UK some time in the future as that has generous amounts of said hue applied! :-)

pagen01
27th April 2011, 09:22
Just thought Nick, your uncles must have some great shots of S Princes' etc at Culdrose?

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 09:26
There is a difference but compare with the Linton jp where that difference is much more marked. "Dayglo orange" was something of a broad church and really did vary from a true orange to this "blood orange". But I agree, the dayglo schemes were most attractive whether orange or red. Sadly even today with improvements in finish technology these colours fade badly - you only have to see an old Dyno-rod van to appreciate that!

NickB
27th April 2011, 09:30
Just thought Nick, your uncles must have some great shots of S Princes' etc at Culdrose?

Yeah, they will have. Chris even managed a flight in Sea Prince before they retired!

My Dad also has many colour slides, especially from the last show that the Sea Princes attended (1978?). I'm heading down next week for Flora Day (I'm leading the midday dance!!!), so will see if I can dig something out.

As an aside a few year ago I was munching on my cornflakes one morning in my house in Newbury and suddenly heard a sound that took me back 30 years in a nano-second! The lovely Pembroke from Bournemouth flew over my house on it's way to Abingdon for the air show. Of course I grew up hearing the Sea Princes fly over my home on a daily basis and that sound has obviously been stored away in the back of the brain somewhere!! :-)

NickB
27th April 2011, 09:34
There is a difference but compare with the Linton jp where that difference is much more marked. "Dayglo orange" was something of a broad church and really did vary from a true orange to this "blood orange". But I agree, the dayglo schemes were most attractive whether orange or red. Sadly even today with improvements in finish technology these colours fade badly - you only have to see an old Dyno-rod van to appreciate that!

I like your description of 'Blood Orange' - hits the nail on the head really (for me at least he adds quickly). Whatever, it was a bl**dy lovely colour!

I saw an RAC van the other day that also had a very faded 'blood orange' panel - looked very 'Sea Prince'!!! ;-)

pagen01
27th April 2011, 09:35
Yeah, they will have. Chris even managed a flight in Sea Prince before they retired!

He was jammy like that, didn't he get a Gannet ride aswel?!
Saw him and Jesser at VL last year, bit of a surprise!
Mr Bray would be another good source of pictures I'm thinking?

Leading the fluore, sorry Flora, Dance eh, promotion!:)

It really would be nice to see and hear the Sea Prince and Pembroke flying at a show this year.

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 09:38
I do agree its a great colour! And as noted in an earlier thread:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1603765

NickB
27th April 2011, 09:41
He was jammy like that, didn't he get a Gannet ride aswel?!
Saw him and Jesser at VL last year, bit of a surprise!
Mr Bray would be another good source of pictures I'm thinking?

Leading the fluore, sorry Flora, Dance eh, promotion!:)

It really would be nice to see and hear the Sea Prince and Pembroke flying at a show this year.

I'm not sure about the Gannet, but will ask him when I see him. My cousin was on 831Sqn and flew in the two Gannet ECM6's that used to be at Flambards, plus an Avenger I believe!
However my Dad tops them both (in my eyes) as he flew in two Lancs from St Eval on the same day when his name was added to a flying list twice!!!

Such a shame the RNHF didn't receive a Sea Prince when they retired. I could also add a Gannet to that list & numerous other types, but of course it is not as simple as that. What I would give to see a Sea Hornet F20 though...dream, dream, dream....

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 09:50
A dayglo sea hornet really would be something to behold!

pagen01
27th April 2011, 09:51
Coming through from beneath the degraded dayglo is the old trainer yellow fusalage band and glimpses of them can also be seen on the wings.

That is an interesting shot, looks like the orange is painted adjacent to the yellow band rather than it showing through, but it does look thoroughly worn!

Wyvernfan
27th April 2011, 09:59
Have to say this excellent pic by AMB is a new one on me. Never seen a Sea Prince in white / silver / dayglo before. Was this a one off or a regular colour scheme of the time?


http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n184/Amoskeeto/WP313SeaPrinceT1RN750SqnOdihamSEP68.jpg

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 10:00
Yes. ..could be.

So to wrap it up. We have two shades of dayglo in use which we have unofficially designated orange and blood-orange. Most variations from these will be down to degradation and strong sunlight.

pagen01
27th April 2011, 10:03
One thing this thread is showing Rob is that there seems to be many subtle variations in the basic three colour schemes.
Generally the sliver/white roof and thin cheatline were applied to the Stn Flt and communication aircraft, these were often the T.1 trainers that were swapped between 750 sqn and the various flights which goes someway to explaining the mixture of schemes.
I can't see that pic, can you see what code it is wearing?

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 10:04
Wyvernfan - the URL I posted further up this page also shows a white top.

Wyvernfan
27th April 2011, 10:06
Cheers James. Its 658 with LM (presume Lossiemouth) on the fin.

NickB
27th April 2011, 10:06
[QUOTE=Wyvernfan;1736399]Have to say this excellent pic by AMB is a new one on me. Never seen a Sea Prince in white / silver / dayglo before. Was this a one off or a regular colour scheme of the time?[/QUOTE

Before they moved back to Lossiemouth & ultimately Culdrose, 750 NAS was based at Hal Far. I wonder if the white roof was an attempt to reflect some of the heat in a bid to keep the cabin cooler? Just a thought.

Looked lovely though didn't it? :-)

Wyvernfan
27th April 2011, 10:07
Wyvernfan - the URL I posted further up this page also shows a white top.

Yup so it does. Missed that as it blends in more with the silver :o.

Wyvernfan
27th April 2011, 10:09
Yes i agree NickB.. its the most striking scheme on a Sea Prince i've seen :)

pagen01
27th April 2011, 10:11
That would suggest to me 750 sqn while at Lossie, which is where they were stationed after Hal Far.

Now I would love to see a picture of a St Meryn based Sea Prince, where the Observer School first received the type.
We still haven't seen a thimble nosed version yet either!

AMB
27th April 2011, 10:12
Fantastic shot by my old friend Chris England there, I know his photo archive of Culdrose in that period is second to none. Keep em coming!:)

[/QUOTE]
Yes lovely and Dayglo again.....or do you see this as 'plain red'?:confused:

The whole issue seems to revolve around the inability to tell 'Dayglo' from 'plain postbox red'. Like Tim, I am convinced that the 750 Squadron Sea Princes started life as overall natural metal with golden yellow trainer bands, then were overall metal with 'Fire Orange' (a reddish orange) Dayglo extremities. Around the early '70s, the metal areas were painted Light Aircraft Grey and the Dayglo was repainted in a slightly more orangish hue, but at no time was 'plain postbox/signal/cherry red' paint used....unless someone can come up with a colour photo that proves otherwise.

Once everyone has grasped these facts, then we can move on to the Gatwick Museum examples which, although incorrectly repainted, look smart and will endure a longer period looking like that than wearing Dayglo paint which will need constant attention. We purists have to accept that on behalf of the general public, just as long as the museum does.

AMB
27th April 2011, 10:35
[QUOTE=pagen01;1736411]Deliberate goading is pathetic Adrian,[QUOTE]

Not 'goading', just curious as to how you interpret this colour?


[QUOTE=pagen01;1735924]
I'm not saying that the red is bright red as in RAF trainers but an orangy red, like a flat verison of fluorescent red orange used on some SAR machines, as in this pic of a WF118 here, http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/372288.html, the colour isn't far of the roundal red or the Provosts behind.[QUOTE]


Ah, now I can see how this confusion has come about, as this photo is exactly how different types of film and processing can interpret 'Dayglo'. On the left is a scan from my official colour swatch or how the 'Dayglo' should look and I would be interested in comments how this is viewed on the PC. Alongside it are scans from my British Standards swatch of official red paint shades used by the RAF and RN. Hope you can all see the differences, but this still doesn't show the brightness of fluorescent/Dayglo.

bms44
27th April 2011, 11:16
Looks like there's a Marshalls (of Cambridge) logo on the fin of the Sea Prince in the attached photo posted by WebPilot.
This would suggest that Marshalls had repainted this aircraft; I doubt if the navy would have applied this logo if it had been done in their paint shops, but would have later applied a station code when appropriate. Marshalls should (might?) have records of the paint codes applied to this and subsequent aircraft for the R.N. to clarify the confusion (if any still exists). Brian

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1215277F.jpg

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 11:47
Adrian. Interesting but irrelevant really. We know the blood red dayglo is not the same as the roundel red. Do you have swatches of the two different dayglo colours to compare?

There is definitely rewriting of history going on here. Adrian you now say the machines went from trainer yellow to dayglo to a different shade of dayglo which is *exactly* what chox denies and what everyone else has said all along. Cox has said they only ever used one shade of dayglo though he's now trying wriggle out of that! No one has ever said that the darker shade is the same as roundel red or any other red. Simply that gatwick have tried to match the underlying shade in a non dayglo version as best as possible in a compromise between longevity and authenticity. I don't know why you can't grasp this. No, its not the same but it is *similar* in a non dayglo way.

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 11:49
Looks like there's a Marshalls (of Cambridge) logo on the fin of the Sea Prince in the attached photo posted by WebPilot.
This would suggest that Marshalls had repainted this aircraft; I idoubt if the navy would have applied this logo if it had been done in their paint shops, but would have later applied a station code when appropriate

Brian - Could just be a zap not necessarily a full repaint.

Chox
27th April 2011, 12:33
WebPilot you'r just sounding childish. There's nothing we can add. All of your points have been addressed repeatedly. As I've said, if you are so sure that Adrian and I are somehow wrong, then go away and produce just one photo to demonstrate this fact. Simple.

WebPilot
27th April 2011, 12:44
Wriggle wriggle wriggle. You made the statement that no redder orange was ever used and Adrian rebutted you. As you say very simple. Now if you can add anything more than childish shouts of "but I'm right!" Then do so otherwise I suggest your best contribution would be silence. Pagen01 is right. You should apologise to Peter for your disgraceful comments to him.

David Burke
27th April 2011, 18:50
Yes everyone seems to see red !!! Or orange interpretations of it!!!

pagen01
27th April 2011, 20:19
Never seen a Sea Prince in white / silver / dayglo before. Was this a one off or a regular colour scheme of the time?

Just been running through all the pictures of SPs I have on disc and it seems that was the normal scheme at the time.
The basic scheme for the T.1 trainers went,
All over silver with the yellow trainer bands around rear fusalage and wings,
silver, orange/red extremities, with a white roof,
light grey, orange/red extremities.

C.1s and C.2s
All over dark blue,
silver, white upper halves, and blue cheatline
Some T.1s appeared in that last scheme when used by Stn Flts


Getting back to an earlier question, does anyone here have anymore info on the thimble radome nose variants?
It seems that only a small number (possibly four) were delivered with these, I wondered if they were AI Observer tariners, possibly for Sea Venom crew?
Pictures are scarce but this is a nice one of Gatwicks' WF118 as 567-BY with 727 sqn.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/Percival_Sea_Prince_T_1_WF118_727_Sqn_FAA_09_56.jp g

AMB
27th April 2011, 23:53
Adrian. Interesting but irrelevant really. We know the blood red dayglo is not the same as the roundel red. Do you have swatches of the two different dayglo colours to compare?



Actually I think the Dayglo colour used has been the same all along, but they may have used different batches or photos may show it slightly differently in different lighting conditions. However well maintained it was, it would tend to fade slightly with each prolonged exposure, going to a slightly more orangish hue before being repainted once again. This whole issue is between 'dayglo' and 'red' and some people can't tell the difference, which is made all the more confusing when different makes of film try to portray this.
I think we have all exhausted this subject ad-infinitum, so let's move on.

Sorry Pagen01, I have no info on the thimble-nosed SP.

WebPilot
28th April 2011, 07:25
That's clearly not the case - as noted by a number of other sources. However I agree; time to move on.

spitfireman
28th April 2011, 09:24
I took this at St Mawgan early 80s, anybody identify?

pagen01
28th April 2011, 09:27
I can identify that it's not a Sea Prince Baz!



You couldn't let it lie could you Cox, just had to have that one more little stir just as others are trying to keep the thread on the subject and move smoothly on.

I quote you (thanks Milt!), ''And well done for simply dismissing Adrian's comment without so much as one shred of evidence to support it. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for the mythical photograph to back-up any of what you've said...''

I would say that it is Adrian that has been dismissive in this instance, from his last post,


Actually I think the Dayglo colour used has been the same all along, but they may have used different batches or photos may show it slightly differently in different lighting conditions.

From way back in the thread and mention of the mythical photos,


The shade of Dayglo (= flurorecent) paint may have changed over the years(I have slides of Sea Princes with red and orange Dayglo over the years) but they are still Dayglo...and I've seen enough of them to know the difference!


Conveniant huh?!

There are plenty of pictures which convey both tones and L Howard has provided paint specs way back at the beginning.
Let it lie, you have'nt contributed one useful thing to this thread apart from discord.

WebPilot
28th April 2011, 09:34
Pagen01: just so. There has been a good deal of position shifting and back tracking. The thread I referenced earlier also highlights two different shades in use by the FAA.

spitfireman
28th April 2011, 09:40
I can identify that it's not a Sea Prince Baz!




Not my sphere......Pembroke??

Baz

WebPilot
28th April 2011, 09:45
Yes - Pembroke. Note 60 sq emblem on the fin above the tail flash.

spitfireman
28th April 2011, 09:48
ahhh, .....I thought that was the letter 'Y'!

pagen01
28th April 2011, 09:58
Looks like Pembroke C.1 XF799? As WP says it's the 60 sqn Markhor (Deer type thing!) head on the tail.

spitfireman
28th April 2011, 10:03
Was there any difference between the two? (apart from the name:rolleyes:)

WebPilot
28th April 2011, 10:11
Quite a few. The main difference was the Pembroke (developed from the prince / sea prince) had a longer wing span and a different version of the Leonides.

Wyvernfan
28th April 2011, 10:40
Anyone got anymore pics of Sea Princes in the silver/ white / dayglo scheme.?.. i really like that.

Peter
28th April 2011, 14:30
Ok not sure how this slipped through the net but thanks to one member for bringing it to our attention! Apologies for letting this thread get way out of line, I have tried my best to clean things back and to get the topic back o n track. If anyone has any issues or if I have missed anything that needs to be edited or removed please let me know.
Peter ,
Mod

Robert Whitton
28th April 2011, 18:16
Ok not sure how this slipped through the net but thanks to one member for bringing it to our attention!
Peter ,
Mod

Your action is most appreciated, you and other mods cant sit and read everything every day! I would just like to thank everyone for their contributions to date to this subject that I personally find most interesting and I look forward to more photgraphs of Sea Princes (and Pembrokes :D )
I must admit that I have been ready to give up on the whole forum a number of times in the past due to similar occurances. I dont know who are the people behind the names and dont really want to.

We are lucky in the UK to have the freedom to express our thoughts and opinions on any subjects, in particular such trivial matters as aircraft colour schemes. Many of our countrymen and women together with our allies laid down their lives for us and continue to do so.

pagen01
28th April 2011, 18:33
Anyone got anymore pics of Sea Princes in the silver/ white / dayglo scheme.?.. i really like that.

I know this is going to sound stupid (especially in a colours thread!), but here are some in B&W!

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/SeaPrinceT1WF118619LM.jpg

Gatwicks' WF118 619 LM flying off Lossies' coast

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/SeaPrinceT1WF128570CU.jpg

WF128 570 CU flying over Culdrose

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/SeaPrinceT1WF124676CW.jpg

This is WF124 676 CW after a crash landing in 1956, notice the thimble radome lying on the floor. It was a bullet shapped afair which was suspended on a framework within the nose structure, the panel work around it was cut away to allow the radome to protrude right through.

The above pictures are from Peter Londons' book RNAS Culdrose and attributed to Culdrose.

bms44
28th April 2011, 18:50
Welcome back Robert :good shots to kick off again pagen01, I know I've more or less exhausted my photo archives on the Sea Prince , but I look forward to seeing several more that must be still awaiting display here. (Come on chaps!) and monochrome is good, especially if it avoids further confrontation.:)

WebPilot
28th April 2011, 19:37
Lots here, though the "watermark" prevents real enjoyment:

http://www.transportphotos.com/air?sort=asc&order=Subject&page=768&search=

Wyvernfan
28th April 2011, 20:06
Thanks James. That crash landing looks nasty!

bms44
28th April 2011, 20:31
The above pictures are from Peter Londons' book RNAS Culdrose and attributed to Culdrose.

James, hadn't come across this book before, but managed to obtain a good s/hand copy this evening through Amaz*n. Have to be patient until after Easter now though.Brian

pagen01
28th April 2011, 20:45
Burgger, I would have sent you one of my copies!

bms44
28th April 2011, 21:09
...never mind, you didn't know! Thanks for the thought, though . :)

Bruce
29th April 2011, 11:54
Crikey - never realised a thread on the Sea Prince could get so contentious.

My experience of dayglo is that it fades like the very devil. When it is new, it is a very bright, vibrant orange - which comes out as red when reproduced photographically. Cant be avoided; when you photograph it, it doesnt come out the same shade!

As it fades, it clearly looks orange, and will reproduce as such in a photograph. It often still looks a shade darker though.

When its really faded, it looks white - the colour of the primer underneath.

When I repainted a Vampire that should have used Dayglo, I used a bright red - to save the fade issue.



Bruce

pagen01
29th April 2011, 12:41
Actually Bruce your post has just reminded how good Dove D-IFSB at the de Havilland Museum looks in its dayglo scheme, http://www.flickr.com/photos/36928008@N08/4708876035/

Bruce
29th April 2011, 14:00
Thats a good example of dayglo fading - and was why I didnt use it for the Vampire!

The Dove is getting quite bad now (in terms of fading), and was only painted a couple of years ago.


Bruce

WebPilot
30th April 2011, 14:34
Here's some more of that lovely orange dayglo,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I42lzNAUm8c

Hang on…*Red* Pelicans?

:D

AMB
30th April 2011, 19:12
Here's some more of that lovely orange dayglo,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I42lzNAUm8c

Hang on…*Red* Pelicans?

:D

Dare I say it, now they were a different shade of Dayglo altogether, specially mixed for the team!

Chox
6th May 2011, 17:57
Nothing to add to my previous comments regarding the Sea Prince colours, although I have now got to the bottom of the "Cherry Red " saga as mentioned earlier in the thread. See the separate thread on this little matter if it really does interest anybody! :p

DaveF68
27th February 2012, 11:44
To (hopefully) bring the discussion of reds to a close, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what the name used is....it's the BS381C tint reference number which is the important bit to get right. Post-war roundel reds should be BS381C-538.

The difference is that British Standards changed the name of colour 538 from Post Office Red to Cherry Red at one point (Might have been the 80s revision, if not earlier)

markstott
8th July 2012, 17:58
I am now the proud owner of this aircraft and we hope to restore her to flying condition once more - she is in good shape apart from one engine which has probably been 'hydrauliced'. Does anyone have facts or stories about her history and service record?
I would be interested in any old photos of her as we are trying to decide which authentic colour scheme we will use to re paint her - probably grey with dayglo bands and wing panels. Was she ever painted differently? were her bands ever trainer yellow?

Mark Stott

freebird
8th July 2012, 18:25
Mark

I sent you some photos a few months ago. :D

Wyvernfan
8th July 2012, 18:29
Mark, Can't really help with photos or actual schemes i'm afraid, but i have fond memories of this wonderful aeroplane in the skies overhead when operated by the RFC at Bourn airfield nr Cambridge back in the eighties. And i would just like to thank you for saving the Sea Prince, and wish you well and good luck in returning her to where she belongs... in the skies over Britain.! :cool:


Rob

WJ244
8th July 2012, 18:33
Very pleased to see someone has bought her with a view to flying her again.
I am sure one of the party pieces from her airshow act (and one of the more popular parts for the public with no aviation knowledge) was to fly around with one undercarriage leg up and the other down. The hydraulic system was split which made it possible to retract/extend each side independently.
Best of luck with the restoration/overhaul and I really hope you can get her sorted and back into the air soon.

pagen01
8th July 2012, 21:06
...we are trying to decide which authentic colour scheme we will use to re paint her - probably grey with dayglo bands and wing panels. Was she ever painted differently? were her bands ever trainer yellow?

Basically the Sea Prince trainers initially wore the all over silver with a golden yellow training band applied around the rear fuselage and each wing.

then went to silver with dayglo nose, tail, and outboard wings, and white fuselage roof.

Finally wore the all over light aircraft grey with dayglo applied as above

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/SeaPrinceT1WF128570CU.jpg
WF128 570-CU

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/SeaPrinceT1WF118619LM.jpg
WF118 619-LM

Please, oh please, go for the all over silver, dayglo orange nose, tail, and wing sections, and white fuselage roof with thin cheatline scheme - the scheme just prior to going into the light aircraft grey and dayglo scheme. No other preserved Sea Prince is in these colours.
Attached pic by friend Chris England of WM739 shown in this scheme.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/pagen/SeaPrinceCEngland.jpg

Hopefully see you at the hangar soon!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8007/7303496528_81c8845fbd_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56270329@N08/7303496528/)
Sea Prince T.1 WP321 G-BRFC 30 May 12 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56270329@N08/7303496528/) by jamtey71 (http://www.flickr.com/people/56270329@N08/), on Flickr

pagen01
8th July 2012, 21:08
I am sure one of the party pieces from her airshow act (and one of the more popular parts for the public with no aviation knowledge) was to fly around with one undercarriage leg up and the other down. The hydraulic system was split which made it possible to retract/extend each side independently.
.

The only hydraulic system on the Prince/Pembroke family is the wipers, everything else is pneumatic, not sure how they isolated one u/c side from the other.