Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sea Prince Colours!!!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Sea Prince Colours!!!

    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/showt...=105907&page=9
    Last edited by Robert Whitton; 31st August 2011, 21:37.
    Robert Whitton,
    Edinburgh, Scotland

    #2
    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.
    Last edited by pagen01; 21st April 2011, 17:32.
    http://www.abpic.co.uk/search.php?q=...t=most_popular

    Comment


      #3
      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
      Attached Files

      Comment


        #4
        Nice pictures Brian, what are the panels that seem to be open in the last shot?
        http://www.abpic.co.uk/search.php?q=...t=most_popular

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by pagen01 View Post
          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

          Comment


            #6
            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?
            http://www.abpic.co.uk/search.php?q=...t=most_popular

            Comment


              #7
              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!
              Peter Mills

              Comment


                #8
                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?
                Last edited by pagen01; 22nd April 2011, 13:16.
                http://www.abpic.co.uk/search.php?q=...t=most_popular

                Comment


                  #9
                  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.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Peter Mills View Post
                    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
                    Last edited by NickB; 22nd April 2011, 20:25. Reason: spelling
                    BOLTER, BOLTER FULL POWER! Keith, if he bolts again we'll have to divert him to St Mawgan

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by NickB View Post
                      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.
                      Last edited by WebPilot; 23rd April 2011, 09:17.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by NickB View Post
                          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.





                          BTW keep the Sea Prince pictures coming!
                          Last edited by pagen01; 23rd April 2011, 11:45.
                          http://www.abpic.co.uk/search.php?q=...t=most_popular

                          Comment


                            #14
                            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....
                            Attached Files
                            The views I express are PURELY my own. Please respect that.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by NickB View Post
                              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,
                              Edinburgh, Scotland

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by pagen01 View Post

                                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
                                Robert Whitton,
                                Edinburgh, Scotland

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  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.
                                  Last edited by Chox; 23rd April 2011, 12:49.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Chox View Post
                                    ....although the roundel colour remained Post Office Red.
                                    BS381C-538 Cherry Red for roundels, not Post Office Red.
                                    The views I express are PURELY my own. Please respect that.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      er no, Post Office Red actually. Where the hell has "Cherry Red" come from?! (oh no, another can of worms...)

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Chox View Post
                                        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!
                                        The views I express are PURELY my own. Please respect that.

                                        Comment


                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X