The Ship Model Forum

Building the Merit Ark Royal with the Tetra kit. Which comes with the update parts for a 1941 fit consisting of deck sheilding for her guns.
Can anyone tell me the colours inside the open areas of the ship. Were the ceilings painted white with grey walls and a deck colour? I know the aft open area had white painted walls and girders.
Thanks.

Trumpeter's 1/700 Ark Royal has been released - photos of kit sprues and instructions on Hobby Search: http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10489819

No hangar deck or posable elevators, and waterline only.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

I have seen a Pontos detail up kit that I believe they depicted wooden decks on the forecastle and quarterdeck as well as the gun mound decks. I am not sure where they got their information from.

I am just wondering if anyone here knows if the Blackburn Skuas and Fairey Fulmars had a camo pattern when on the Ark Royal at various times as depicted in the Merit kit and if so what pattern and paint scheme to go for? Is their instruction sheet accurate.

AR's Swordfish were camouflaged in the summer of 1939, but her Skuas were not camouflaged until after AR returned from the South Atlantic. During the Norwegian Campaign their camouflage went through a number of significant changes: the key one being the overpainting of the undersurface black and white IFF markings with sky blue (possibly a local mix of blue and white). The first Fulmar squadron replaced one of the Skua squadrons in October 1940. Early examples may also have had sky blue undersurfaces. Later examples were in standard Temperate Sea Scheme with Sky undersurfaces. National recognition markings also changed during this period; specifically in early June 1940 when fin flashes were introduced and a yellow concentric was added to the fuselage roundel. The size and shape of the fin flash varied by aircraft type and date.

Full details are given in my book Fleet Air Arm Camouflage and Markings Atlantic and Mediterranean Theatres 1937 - 1941 (ISBN 978-1-905414-08-6). Speculation in the book concerning the use of sky blue during the later part of the Norwegian campaign was confirmed when Casson's Skua L2896 was recovered in 2008 (see here: http://luftfartsmuseum.no/fly/project-b ... 6-green-a/)

At the time of her loss, I would guess that HMS Ark Royal was painted 507c (very weathered with lots of 507a/b showing through). This seems to be consistent with the picture of Ark Royal with HMS Legion just prior to sinking. HMS Legion is camouflaged with a 507c superstructure and a 507a/b hull with the hull being quite dark the superstructure much lighter. The superstructure of HMS Legion is closer to the color of Ark Royal than is the hull of HMS Legion. Additionally, a 507c camouflage would consistent with service in the Med. Am I correct? Thanks so much, Rich

I've finally got round to building my Aoshima 1/700 Ark Royal. After speaking with Jamie Duff, I've elected to paint her Dark Grey (507A) overall with a Bronze Grey flight deck. It's too late to change now, as the flight deck is ready for decals! Now I'm guessing this means the paint job is wrong for the time of her sinking but what time period would that be correct for? That will determine whether I use Fulmar's or Skua's for one thing. Also, I've seen someone model Ark Royal with radar on her HACS, is this correct and if so, when were they fitted? Last question for now, would she have had railings around the main ship's boat platforms (where the large cranes were)?

thanks
Mike

The information is quite new and has taken a lot of us by surprise regarding the colours. There are plenty of photos of the ship with dark hull and light upper paints with what appears to be 507A at the lower part of the hull and 507C at the top half. Even photos of it sinking depict this.

If you have elected to paint it entirely in 507A and if this is similar to his version of Home Fleet Grey which I believe he is changing somewhat then it may well be during Bismarck action that it wore this scheme as well as a small period of time after commissioning.

It should be said that there has been considerable discussion of the colours seen in the photos of the sinking ship, and identification of two distinct colours has been disputed. I don't recall whether there was any satisfactory conclusion of the matter, so I'm not sticking my neck out other than to say that the single colour information shouldn't come as a complete surprise.

I think it's fair to say that plenty good clean photographs showing Ark Royal beam-on show it in a uniform shade. It's the two-tone suggestions that are contentious because the supposed demarcation follows Ark Royal's very sharp knuckle and most photos allegedly depicting a two-tone scheme show the ship from a quarter, bow or stern on view which do not show the hull directly amidships which is the only section which does not have a knuckle to caste severe shadows.

I am inclined personally to think Ark Royal was not in two-tone paint, but we are seeing distressed 507C almost gone and showing the original, more thoroughly applied Home Fleet Grey

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

I think it would have to be a two tone. There are too many photos floating around the web that make the difference extreme.





It was probably launched in a lighter grey and spent a bit of time in lighter grey in 1938.


This appears a lighter grey to me:

than this one below:



If it was not two tone and simply a shadow then one would expect this at the bow where it is a uniform shade.



Also quite possibly getting a paint job underway. This photo here shows a darker grey above the downward angle that would be cast in shadow. Also note midships where there is new paint and weathered light paint.

I'm with Sutho - in my opinion there is no way that's not two tones.
But we all know how much opinions are worth.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

I think this might just remain disagreed. All of those photos support single tone. The dark tone in the aerial photo from port showing her listing is the underwater hull. The rest are showing shadow.

There are only two shades shown on all of those - Home Fleet Grey or Mediterranean Grey.

But yes, opinions - everyone has one.

My own Ark Royal will not be two-toned and I feel no uncertainty about that choice myself.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

I have no opinion but it does seem the top coat has degraded a lot, where the coat lower to the waterline has not. Perhaps the damage was more extensive there and received a local correction. Could it be a single-colour system with severe wear showing the previous coat and then a lot of patchwork thrown in?

A great subject to apply the hairspray technique on...

If a model is to be painted as sunk, then what is necessary is a 507A base coat with severely distressed 507C above the knuckles but worn away amidships. Most ship modellers don't seem to be too interested in painting effects, but armour modellers are good at it and aircraft modellers often have a go. Three methods to achieve distressed 507C like this are:
1) Hairspray chipping
2) Salt chipping
3) Applying the 507C with a sponge

The demarcation simply isn't there when the knuckle isn't there to create it. It's clearly absent amidships. Where my large green arrow is it's plain that it's a single (dark) tone from boot topping to flight deck level. To mask a line around the hull at knuckle level and paint it dark below and light above will not result in what's evident in the photographs.

What's lacking here is a photograph clearly showing Ark Royal in two-tone but with the paint in reasonable condition. Was it ever deliberately in two-tone paint?

Given the lack of 507C below the knuckles fore and aft, and the poor condition of what remains, it's clear that the paint was applied in a rush without the full washdown procedure and drying times. We need to ask which is more likely:

1) that the sea has been thorough in removing what 507C it could rub against and it has paint stripped most of the hull or
2) that there originally was a deliberate hard demarcation at lower hangar deck level yet not a trace of it remains amidships

There is evidence to support single tone schemes, and there is evidence of a severely battered Aker Royal sinking with overall 507A and some flaky 507C high up fore and aft. What we don't have is evidence of a finish with two paints in anything close to a reasonable condition.

There are two paints on the ship there, I agree, but I am arguing that there is no evidence of a two tone scheme. The sorry remnants of 507C clinging to the bow and stern above the Ark's knuckles prove nothing other than that they're all that's left of some 507C applied in a rush.

We need evidence of a demarcation of where that 507C ended and there isn't any - it's been feathered away by the sea wherever there wasn't the knuckle to protect it.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

That's a cracking photo EJ.

I think this would be a very rewarding subject to paint as a model, but we need to paint what we see rather than painting what we assume it originally looked like.

At the very stern, the demarcation is at lower hangar deck. Following the lower hangar deck along all those cut-outs we soon find there is no demarcation at all. It almost looks like there *might* have been a demarcation one deck up part of the way, but that would imply a dogleg in the demarcation line which is unlikely to have been deliberate.

We can see both 507C and 507A present, but as per my last post, this doesn't prove what it looked like when the newest 507C went on - it only proves what little is left of it.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

I pondered for hours what to paint mine and at the time went entirely 507B with what information was out there. Looking at the history of the ship being based at Scapa Flow and also in Gibraltar there two locations it would have been possibly painted differently. The big question that arises now is when and where was the ship painted and for how long. Up until June 1940 the ship was based at Scapa Flow and then in June 1940 joined Force H in Gibraltar. In February 1941 it went back to the Atlantic to hunt Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, by May of 1941 it was involved in Bismarck action and then by November of that year it was sunk.

The questions that come up now is what colour was it when it was based in the Mediterranean in 1941 and did it repaint for Scharnhost and Gneisenau action in the Atlantic?

If we are seeing both 507A and 507C that is severely weathered at the time of sinking then what colour was it really painted in and what is the fresh paint that appears recently applied close to the waterline. It appears a work in progress and hastily put to sea before the paint job was finished. Possibly entirely in 507C in the Mediterranean and then was for some reason prior to sinking receiving a fresh coat of 507A from the waterline upwards that was not finished at the time of the sinking.

Being half-done makes the most sense here. Much like the Arizona debate though - how far through was it? Ideally someone has some photographs squirreled away showing her just as she left port from that last lick of paint - whether it was new 507A near the waterline or whatever

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

1940 footage, skip to 1:07


Also 1940, paint already coming off. Not so much below the knuckle!

FLEET OPERATION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN. NOVEMBER 1940, ON BOARD THE DESTROYER HMS KELVIN.. © IWM (A 2375) IWM Non Commercial License

Light tone coming through at lower levels too:

THE SINKING OF HMS ARK ROYAL. 13 NOVEMBER 1941, OFF GIBRALTAR. THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER WAS TORPEDOED BY THE GERMAN U-BOAT U-81 AND SEVERELY DAMAGED, SHE SUNK THE FOLLOWING DAY.. © IWM (A 6315) IWM Non Commercial License

THE SINKING OF HMS ARK ROYAL. 13 NOVEMBER 1941, ON BOARD AN ESCORTING WARSHIP, OFF GIBRALTAR. THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER WAS TORPEDOED BY THE GERMAN U-BOAT U-81 AND SEVERELY DAMAGED, SHE SUNK THE FOLLOWING DAY. THE DESTROYER HMS LEGION TOOK THE SHIP'S COMPANY OFF THE SINKING CARRIER.. © IWM (A 6337) IWM Non Commercial License

If this happened on my model I would call that a disaster during painting... top layer not setting as it should.... blame Humbrol, thinner, air brush setting, cat sitting on the compressor...

Anyway, in my opinion paint usually comes off gradually and that appears to be the case? I don't know much about what primers where used in these days, perhaps a more strict paint scheme was used near the waterline?

We've got the painting instructions somewhere. I'm sitting in a hot tub so can't access them right now haha.

The instructions for painting on bare metal though include a strip back, clean, a couple of coats of red lead oxide then the top coat (maybe two? I can't quite remember) followed by 2 days to dry before sailing.

For applying camouflage paints later they were a bit less rigourous - something like a wash down with fresh water to remove salt, then the top coat and two days to dry.

The actual 507A and C are oil paints as we know, but over the past few days Lindsay has been sharing information he has found about the bought-in paints which were oil bound water paints, or, very primitive emulsions. They were not very good - as is evident with water based paints even in modelling they didn't adhere to anything but worse, they adhered to themselves but shrank badly when drying. Applying additional coats tended to soften the previous coat, then pull it off the substrate as it dried and shrunk.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151