Trumpeter 1/32 P-40 M 'War Hawk'

[stona]

This is a Kittyhawk III to those of us on the European side of the Atlantic. It had an Allison V-1710-18 engine, rated at 1200 h.p. for take off and 1125 h.p. at 17,300 feet, Merlin's being prioritised elsewhere.

The kit is from John (Scale Model Shop) and as is invariably the case was competitively priced and arrived almost as soon as I'd hit enter on my order. Fantastic service as usual.

The P-40M was built solely for Lend-Lease, the contract being approved on August 24, 1942. Most of them went to the RAF, the RAAF, and the RNZAF as the Kittyhawk III. The type served with British Commonwealth forces in the Far East. A number were operated in Italy by No. 5 Squadron of the South African Air Force, and it is one of these that will be my victim. The serial number FR817 implies that it was one of 264 P-40Ms supplied to the RAF as Kittyhawk IIIs (FR779/FR872 and FS100/FS269), this one ending up with the SAAF.

I have just finished a Kotare Spitfire, with a superb set of instruction, giving all sorts of well researched and accurate options and advice. The Trumpeter kit gives me this:



There is almost nothing correct here. The colours are wrong and the camouflage pattern is wrong.

Here's the actual aircraft.



I don't think that this is in a tropical scheme but rather the US equivalent to the Temperate Land Scheme (Dark Green/Dark Earth over Sky). The camouflage pattern is also a US version of the British disruptive pattern, drawings for which survive, though apparently not available in China. It is close to that seen on other S/E British fighters and nothing like the one in the instructions.

I shall take a stab at the US colours. The upper surface colours, by the time this aircraft was produced, were fairly close to the original British colours, leaving the only really contentious issue as Curtiss's version of Sky, which was, apparently, not terribly close to our own.

The harness in the kit is wrong for this aircraft, the British fitted their own Sutton harnesses. The tyres are also wrong, not treaded like those above. I'll change the harness but will have to suck up the tyres.

Let's hope that the kit is better engineered than it is researched!

I'm waiting for some paints and a harness, but should be casting off and getting underway this week

 

[papa 695]

Just pulled up my chair Steve. I will be quiet though.

 

[stona]

I've made a start on the cockpit today and whilst I am no expert on this or US aircraft in general, it's not looking that great.

I've decided that the best way to hide a cockpit is to fit one of these:



I've got these lads in the cupboard. The chap in the middle might be a bit overdressed for Italy, but he's got the job.

Posing the aircraft in flight will also mean that I won't have to look at the tyres either. It's a win-win!

Still waiting for some paint, so a slow start.

 

[stona]

Whilst waiting for stuff to arrive I've been educating myself on these aircraft in British/Commonwealth service and trying to work out what this one really looked like. Here's my conclusions for anyone interested. Trumpeter have definitely got this completely wrong, whether I'm completely right is a matter of opinion.

Anyway, here's the image above with some pertinent points arrowed:



First, the RED arrow.

What is that paint? Why is the Dark Green colour a bit ragged, with a lower demarcation and not covering the arrowed patch? I've concluded that the light colour arrowed is a small patch of the original Mid Stone (equivalent) applied at the Curtiss factory. When this colour was overpainted in Dark Green to allow for the greener landscape of Italy this bit got missed, and some erk messed up the demarcation line to the lower colour.

Which brings us to the YELLOW arrow.

This area, behind the Perspex, is generally accepted to have been in a camouflage colour, not the interior colour. Even given the effects of the 'glass' I can't see how it can be either Dark Earth or Dark Green. Compare the colour under the 'glass' with the patch of Mid Stone on the nose. What if, when the Mid Stone was over painted in Dark Green, the crew did not remove that Perspex panel and just left the original Mid Stone alone? It seems plausible to me, even though the clear panels were not difficult to remove, and I'm going to paint that area in Mid Stone.

So finally to the BLUE arrow.

I thought that the underside was in the Curtiss Sky equivalent, even though it seemed rather light in tone. Now that I've convinced myself that this aircraft was originally finished in the Curtiss version of the tropical scheme, it means that the underside would have been in the Curtiss Light Blue colour. It really was quite light, much more so than the British Azure Blue for which it was substituting. This now makes sense given the tone of it in the B&W photograph. I don't have this colour, but I think I can approximate it by starting with a German colour (RLM 76) and messing about with that to get close enough.

I can't decide whether the Dark Green (the darker tone) looks sprayed or brushed on to the aircraft. Any opinions are welcome.

So there you have it, the ramblings of a mad man! You don't have to agree, I'd be amazed if everyone did, but it's the mechanism by which I have decided how to paint my model of this aircraft.

All I need to do now is to stop talking and build the bl**dy thing!

 

[Neil Merryweather]

speaking as a non-expert, Steve, I'd say you're completely right, and very interesting it is too!
I'd go for brush-painted, judging by the lumpy bit above the undercarriage leg

 

[Neil Merryweather]

....and if you look at the underside above the drop-tank ,I'd say it might be Azure,....

 

[stillp]

This area, behind the Perspex, is generally accepted to have been in a camouflage colour, not the interior colour. Even given the effects of the 'glass' I can't see how it can be either Dark Earth or Dark Green. Compare the colour under the 'glass' with the patch of Mid Stone on the nose. What if, when the Mid Stone was over painted in Dark Green, the crew did not remove that Perspex panel and just left the original Mid Stone alone? It seems plausible to me, even though the clear panels were not difficult to remove, and I'm going to paint that area in Mid Stone.

The instructions show those areas in a lighter green. Were those dummy canopy panes painted to make the aircraft look like it had a longer canopy?
Pete

 

[Jakko]

I thought that the underside was in the Curtiss Sky equivalent, even though it seemed rather light in tone.

IMHO, this is something that’s hard to conclude from a black-and-white photo, though. What if this photo has been printed a bit light, for example? The problem is finding something of a known shade to compare with, though …

Were those dummy canopy panes painted to make the aircraft look like it had a longer canopy?

AFAIK, they’re there to allow the pilot to see over his shoulder. Without the recessed areas and the glazing panels, he would just see the fuselage, but this is enough to get a better view to the rear.

 

[stillp]

AFAIK, they’re there to allow the pilot to see over his shoulder. Without the recessed areas and the glazing panels, he would just see the fuselage, but this is enough to get a better view to the rear.

So they're glazed panels? They don't seem to add much to the visibility, at least in this restored example:

The pilot's seat blocks any visibility over his shoulder, and there doesn't seem to be any visibility from one side to the other of the fuselage.
Pete

 

[stillp]

Having said that, the one at Hendon clearly shows clear panels. (no pun intended)
Pete

 

[stillp]

It looks like Trumpeter want those 'clear panels to be painted Interior Green.
Pete

 

[stona]

....and if you look at the underside above the drop-tank ,I'd say it might be Azure,....

I think the drop tank might be Medium Sea Grey, the underside colour on the then current Day Fighter Scheme.

That area could be quite mucky on P-40s, being directly behind the bottom of the engine.

 

[stona]

The instructions show those areas in a lighter green. Were those dummy canopy panes painted to make the aircraft look like it had a longer canopy?
Pete

Trumpeter does suggest the interior colour (which they give as 'Field Green'). The interior colour, at the time this aircraft was built, was a Curtiss colour, somewhat yellower than the US Interior Green with which we are familiar. It is the subject of much debate among those who know about these aircraft and 'those' does not include me.

The consensus of those who know is that this area under the rear 'glass' was painted in a camouflage colour. It definitely seems lighter on this aircraft, which is why I'm going with the original camouflage colour, before the application of Dark Green, that would have been Mid Stone. It was supposed to help the view to the rear.

 

[stona]

IMHO, this is something that’s hard to conclude from a black-and-white photo, though. What if this photo has been printed a bit light, for example? The problem is finding something of a known shade to compare with, though ….

I don't disagree, but it is clearly a light colour. Given that the original finish was a Curtiss equivalent tropical scheme it can't have been any version of Sky (in 1943*) or the British colour Azure Blue. That leaves the Curtiss Light Blue (with a number I've forgotten) which we know was accepted as a substitution.

All the P-40 Ms had 43-*** US serial numbers.

 

[adt70hk]

Something different Steve and as always well researched!

ATB

Andrew

 

[Jakko]

So they're glazed panels?

Yes, nothing more than that. An area has been scooped out of the side of the fuselage and a Perspex panel fitted over it.

The pilot's seat blocks any visibility over his shoulder, and there doesn't seem to be any visibility from one side to the other of the fuselage.

You can (just) see in that video that the seat’s headrest is narrower than the fuselage behind it (with which I mean: the width between the two “scooped-out” bits) so if the pilot can look around the side of the headrest, he can see out through the clear panels. Visibility from one side through to the other isn’t necessary.

I don't disagree, but it is clearly a light colour.

I’m not disagreeing either with your analysis, just pointing out that it’s hard to say how light something is unless you have something of a known shade you can compare to. I take it the tip of the tail fin is white? But even that is problematic for comparison, as it’s on a different side of the plane and lit differently …

 

[stillp]

Visibility from one side through to the other isn’t necessary.

Of course, but the lack of through visibility suggested to me that the 'windows' were actually opaque, which I no know to be incorrect.
Pete

 

[flyjoe180]

The P-40 wreck discovered in the Sahara (ET574, Dennis Copping) shows what looks to be a middle stone colour under the broken rear perspex panels. Of course this may have faded over the years, but it doesn't look like a version of an interior green to me. Camouflage colour sounds good Steve, for your RAF Kittyhawk.

 

[stona]

I’m not disagreeing either with your analysis, just pointing out that it’s hard to say how light something is unless you have something of a known shade you can compare to. I take it the tip of the tail fin is white? But even that is problematic for comparison, as it’s on a different side of the plane and lit differently …

The tip of the tail is generally supposed to be white, as are the code letters.

Again, I agree about comparisons. Trying to guess which of two shades of blue is which from a B&W photograph is always going to be as much a matter of opinion as of fact!

I think that what tipped the balance for me was that the only way this aircraft could have received an Azure Blue underside is if it was applied after it was sent to Italy. We know that the Mid Stone was overpainted with Dark Green because they felt that the light Mid Stone colour, designed for the desert/tropics, was not effective camouflage on or over the greener Italian countryside. This was a compelling reason to take the time and make the effort to do the job. However, it seems unlikely (to me) that they would have taken the time to replace one shade of blue with another on the underside, simply because there was no compelling reason to do so.

Of course, we'll probably never know for sure. If I saw a model of this aircraft finished with an Azure Blue underside I would be the last person to argue with it

 

[Jakko]

the lack of through visibility suggested to me that the 'windows' were actually opaque

Ah, yes, this is an obvious assumption from model painting instructions

The tip of the tail is generally supposed to be white, as are the code letters.

I was wondering about the colour of the letters. They look a bit darker than pure white in the photo you posted, but then, so does the tip of the tail. The only thing I would have automatically assumed to be plain white, is the stork on the nose

Trying to guess which of two shades of blue is which from a B&W photograph is always going to be as much a matter of opinion as of fact!

Always one of the fun parts of trying to build an accurate model. Of course, even with colour photos we could be having a discussion like this …

it seems unlikely (to me) that they would have taken the time to replace one shade of blue with another on the underside, simply because there was no compelling reason to do so.

Agreed, unless the skies over Italy were such a markedly different colour than over the Sahara, why would they repaint the underside?

If I saw a model of this aircraft finished with an Azure Blue underside I would be the last person to argue with it

I have a strong feeling plenty of people would not just ask for justification, but argue about it even when given exactly that