ESDG/Sky variations

[PR19_Kit]

While researching the schemes for my Skysearcher build I've been looking up various FAA aircraft done in the lovely ESDG/Sky schemes.

The early aircraft that used this scheme, Seafires, Attackers, Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms etc. had very little ESDG visible from the side view, limiting the dark grey just to that which could be seen from vertically above I suspect. Later on the demarcation was moved downwards to around the halfway point in side view, as in the later Sea Hawks and Scimitars. Even further on almost the ENTIRE side view was ESDG with the Sky limited to only the undersides which could bee from vertically below, particularly shown on the Sea Vixen FAW1s.

The question is, why?

Oddly the AEW3 Gannets, on which I'm basing my Skysearcher scheme, persisted in using the early type of demarcation right until they were stood down, even when all the other aircraft in the FAA had gone away from ESDG/Sky totally to the dark Navy Blue/White scheme on Phantoms, or all over dark Blue/Grey on the Buccaneer S2s.

Early schemes











Interim schemes





Late scheme

[Thorvic]

The scheme went to EDSG over White rather than Sky in about 1958, so all the types with the lower demarkation line are white undersides (Scimitar, Buccaneer, Sea Vixen, late Sea Hawk & late Sea Venom). The AEW Gannets retained the EDSG high demarkation line over Sky as used on the ASW Gannets mainly because they would be cruising at altitude so sky when looking from below and sea when seen from above.

The Buccaneers started white and then white with high demarkation EDSG because of their nuclear role with the EDSG making them harder to see when on deck or over the sea from above. They switched to overall EDSG as the white gave away their position when they manoevered so went with the EDSG and pale blue codes to make them much harder to spot. The fighters retained their low demarkation EDSG over white right up to the falklands, i think the idea was they were hard to spot as they could bank and switch from a dark shape to a light shape when manoevering in air combat.

The follow on to the Gannet AEW is a bit of a quandary, i feel they would have eventually switched to the Fighter scheme had the carrier fleet continued simply to conform with the rest of the aircraft and remove Sky from the paint stores, as they eventually switched the Arks Gannets to the tactical roundel as per the Buccaneers, but the Phantoms retained the traditional Red,white and blue ones !!!. The P139B model follows the same scheme as the Gannet, but that dates from 1965/6 when the CVA-01 was cancelled along with the P139 program, but models of the E-2K put forward for use as Gannet Replacement on Ark Royal shows the Phantom style scheme.

Hope this helps

Geoff

[sandiego89]

Good discussion item over a pint 

They all look great, guess the time frame should dictate what to use.  The high altitude use of an AEW platform make sense going with the higher demarcation. 

[PR19_Kit]

I'm going with the tactical roundels too, they suit the EDSG/Sky scheme a lot better than the 3 colour ones I think.

[Mossie]

Geoff might know better than me, but if IIRC the high demarcation started with Coastal Command, where they used white lowers with temperate sea scheme uppers (later replaced by EDSG).  I think the high demarcation was used as they were more likely to be spotted by surface vessels from below than from aircraft above.  Being sucessful, the FAA adopted it using sky rather than white.  I read it somewhere some time ago so there might be some holes in the memory.

[kitnut617]

In photos I've seen of late war FAA aircraft, they were mostly EDSG all over and down the sides to the normal demarcation line (Early Sea Furys, late Seafires), then after the war the demarcation line slowly crept upwards to how some of your examples show.  Then as you say, it came down again.  Does any conflict at the time that might have implicated the FAA have anything to do with it ?

[Army of One]

Kit.......out of interest, what make/colour numbers have you used please......?

[PR19_Kit]

Erm, it's the tin that looks sort of greeny yellow. 

I'll go and have a look, hang on a mo.......

Still there? OK, it's Xtracolour X7 RAF Sky, but I have a tin of Humbrol 90 as well, in case the X7 runs out. Of course the X7 is gloss and the 90 is matt. 

[Army of One]

Cheers.....I was asking as I have used the 'same' colour but from different manufacturers an there appear to be shade differences..... I was just wondering what the best matches would be and thought you or Thorvic may have been the best to answer 

[PR19_Kit]

Just comparing the tins of X7 and 90 they look pretty much the same shade, just differing in being matt or gloss actually. I've now run out of the X70 so the landing gear doors will be painted with the 90 anyway, plus a coat of Klear of course (I nearly typed 'koat of Klear'....  ) so I'll be able to make a direct comparison in a day or so.

In general I've always found that Xtracolor are not that consistent in themselves, shades differing from tin to tin of the same colour, whereas Humbrol are always very consistent

[Thorvic]

The trouble is the Humbrol 90 is not marketed as BS Sky but as Beige Green so techinically its best match rather than correct paint. Hopefully they will move towards revamping the colour range with the correct standards for their model range.

Personally i use Xtracrylix Sky and Extra Dark Sea Grey as i prefer not to to use Enamels these days, although i finish with a satin rather than a gloss varnish which tends to level the colours.

To be honest alot of the model painting comes down to the preference of the modeller, whilst one manufactures paint may be deemed more accurate than anothers, you may not get on well with the brand and struggle to to paint with it. You're actually best going with the brand you feel most comfy with using and get their best colour match where possible, and let the rivet counters know how little you care about their anal opinions should they take issue with the colour accuracy.

[Army of One]

Those replies are most welcome......I don't pay much attention to rivet counters....again, many thanks for the replies.....H

[PR19_Kit]

I once managed to get to RAF Chivenor on some pretext or another at the time when it was 'Hunter Centre UK'. I'm not sure how many Hunters they had there but there must have been at least 50!

What was apparent was that every one seemed to be in a different colour scheme as each colour faded in its own way. This was during the 'Tactical Roundel' period when the undersides were Mid Aircraft Grey and the uppers were in NATO Standard Grey and Green with various colour flashes depending on the aircraft's unit.

If I'd have modelled one of those Hunters I could have used ANY mix of Greys and Greens and it would have been authentic! 

[NARSES2]

To be honest alot of the model painting comes down to the preference of the modeller, whilst one manufactures paint may be deemed more accurate than anothers, you may not get on well with the brand and struggle to to paint with it. You're actually best going with the brand you feel most comfy with using and get their best colour match where possible, and let the rivet counters know how little you care about their anal opinions should they take issue with the colour accuracy.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to think that 

[NARSES2]

In photos I've seen of late war FAA aircraft, they were mostly EDSG all over and down the sides to the normal demarcation line (Early Sea Furys, late Seafires), then after the war the demarcation line slowly crept upwards to how some of your examples show.  Then as you say, it came down again. 

Beat me to it 

Personally having spent 40 years dealing with Whitehall the ever changing hemline probably correlates to the price differential between EDSG and Sky