Wildcat helicopter camouflage question
 

My apologies if this has been covered - I couldn't locate it on a search...

The RN and AAC Wildcat helicopters carry the same camouflage colours. There used to be a rumour that the RN had their way with the colour scheme and that the AAC Wildcats are painted the same because when a particular meeting took place to decide the scheme, the RN attended but the Army didn't show.

Is it just an Urban Myth?

I also heard a rumour that when the HC.3s are converted to HC.4s they will get the same camouflage.

Indeed. HC4 will be a grey cam pattern. Some boffin somewhere said that this was the best camouflage. How that helps when they are FOBing forward on Salisbury Plain or in a Jungle environment, time will tell!

This discussion has just put another question in my mind. Now that the pongoes (and the rest of us :() have ditched CS 95 for PCS/MTP, why are the jets etc still in "CS 95" type colours .....


..... just sayin'

Wonder if the HM.2s will go the same way?

And I've just come across a wonderful new name for the Commando Merlins on Fighter Control: Munglie.

Sacrilege to some, I know, but I sort of like it.

Urban myth.

Didn't the RAF experiment with low-viz grey on a Wessex in Northern Ireland, only to find that it actually made the helicopter appear to 'glow' in the dark?

Would the same not be true for army Wildcats operating at night with this naval paint scheme?

Easy to say of course, but on what basis?
(i.e. How and why did the Army get lumbered with the two-tone grey?)

Melmothtw, is quite right. We trialled several colour schemes in 91 on the Wessex. All over Matt Black made them stand out as a dark shadow at night, the low viz Grey did indeed make them glow and the best result came from the new two tone green which was adopted by both Wessex and Puma. A vast improvement over the older Grey Green Scheme. This was held up by several Fast Jet Pilots who were working up for Bosnia at the time using 60 Sqn's Wessex as targets and the new scheme made it very difficult for them to acquire visually.

Thanks for the confirmation huge72. It would seem odd that the army is either unaware of these trials, or is ignoring the results. That said though, the USMC adopted grey for its rotorcraft some time back, and doesn't seem to have experienced any issues with glowing in the dark.

The grey glowed due to the predominance of cultural lighting in that theatre. Mainly an issue with the sodium lights around the FOBs. Grey works great in the littoral environment.

And of course the Grey Green Scheme originally derived from the early WW2 Brown Green Scheme that was found to have disadvantages when the RAF started to operate out over the sea, the Brown was over painted Grey and the new Grey Green Scheme was found to be an ideal compromise for Aircraft operating over both land and water... which nicely brings us back to the first post.

:)

Could always use elephant white........;)

Actually, the change from dark earth and dark green to ocean grey and dark green was more due to the fact that as RAF aircraft were on the offensive they were also flying at higher altitudes, and the dark earth was of no value at all. I used to think it was down to wanting less visibility over the sea as well until I read otherwise.

I'll have to look the reference up. There is a lot more to it than just flying higher but without the book to hand I can't say much more about it.

Sorry, back on topic.

Partially correct I believe, as the high altitude fighter scheme was grey uppers and Pr blue lowers. the Grey Green was both for Height and Sea

As the OP, thank you for the informative replies.
:ok:

The 1943 camo blurb shows on this thread, both are fascinating reads


Duck egg green .. or.. - Page 3

Theory of Aircraft Camouflage



..

Grey camouflage schemes work very well at ranges beyond around 3km, when viewed through optical systems.


While we spend a great deal of time practicing on SPTA, we're not planning on doing too much actual fighting there.

Use half Blackhawk, after all that's what it is. Junk

If I recall correctly, the high altitude scheme of medium sea grey with PRU blue undersides was developed for the high altitude Spitfires (Mks. VI and VII) from 1942. It was adopted for high altitude PR aircraft post war.

It wasn't a case of getting lumbered - it was based on dstl analysis and formal approval by the MoD Camouflage Working Group.

Who saw that coming?

If you look at the links I posted Martin, you will see the 1943 manual someone has scanned for the paint schemes.

I can't see how this is an effective camo scheme as it stands out, and as this is also a recce asset, the mounting of the optical sensors low on the airframe as opposed to mast or roof mounted, is a bit strange. On the other hand, it looks nice in piccys.


Seen at Otterburn last week.


http://i58.tinypic.com/33usemw.jpg


http://i60.tinypic.com/20rmohs.jpg


http://i59.tinypic.com/vreja8.jpg

Would look much nicer on 150 Blackhawks that can actually do the job:ugh:

Seconded......

There is no point having something to draw the fire away from the proper battle winning kit if the enemy cannot see it in the first place.....

On paper it looks like both types have similar performance/capability, arguably Lynx does better in the number of troops it carries. So, why is Blackhawk better?

:ok: Many thanks, NutLoose, and if you can get hold of a copy of Britain Alone: The camouflage and markings of British military aircraft June 1940-December 1941 by Paul Lucas it's well worth a read regarding the development of the Day Fighter Scheme.

Depends on where your operational environment is going to be and what your threat is. If your threat is fighters flying at a higher level, then a grey scheme over a green background is not good. However, if your intending that the aircraft is operated at a higher alltitude and the threat comes from ground based opponents, then a grey scheme is better.

Kitbag - that's simple one is made by a manufacturer that's never built a successful helicopter and the other really is capable of carrying 8+ with their kit. Not sure what 'on paper' you are reading.

MOSTAFA, I'll grant mine was a very 'Top Trumps' comparison, hence the rider 'on paper', the Sikorsky has by nature of ts home country a vast manufacturing base. I find your primary reason rather trite, though.
What does the SH-60, in your opinion, actually do better than Wildcat?

Well you can swing a cat in the back:ugh: oh and the wipers work! The other stuff the fielding pilots tell me is certainly not for here.

My trite'ness, as you like to call it; incidentally, not a word I'd use to explain my total lack of confidence, might have something to do with several thousand hours of the other manufacturers very best and wishing all those years we'd bought the Blackhawks instead. It's that simple really.

Not that it matters, given that neither Service had a choice in the selection-process.

So why's the gate guardian at Benson all over PRU blue? Was that an earlier scheme?

Diginagain, absolutely! I'm sure you can remember the Dannett interview telling of the conversation between Torpy and himself, that comes across as two bickering children. Hence, negative to Blackhawk.....oh well

Indeed I do!

The Benson Spit (or at least the plastic replica that sits there now) represents a PR variant, and overall PRU blue was used for PR throughout the war and for a number of years afterwards. The Mks. VI and VII were high altitude fighters, and their colour scheme was specified by Fighter Command. Early Vampires and Hornets were the last fighters to use the scheme in about 1947-48. Interestingly, in the early 1950s high altitude PR aircraft were repainted with the medium sea grey on the upper surfaces as well, and I think the Meteor PR. 10 was the last type to use it. The final Spitfires at THUM Flight retained overall PRU blue.

The Wildcat cannot do high, high and heavy.

We could have bought three times as many Blackhawks for the same price, ten years ago. ie when we were at war and young lads were dying for suitable medivac.

We could have bought any number of them 30 years ago, but didn't. Westland offered to build them under license.

If we'd bought UH-60 off the shelf 10 years ago, how long would it have taken to field them?