Who Downed Roger Coverley?

Today, 15th September 2015, marks the 75th anniversary of what the United Kingdom remembers as Battle of Britain Day, recalling a Sunday in September 1940 when it was made clear that Fighter Command of the Royal Air Force (RAF) was still very much in being. An invasion of Great Britain was postponed two days later. Sadly, it was also the day that the body of Flying Officer W.H. "Roger" Coverley was found hanging from his parachute, caught in the top branches of a tall tree near Tunbridge Wells in Kent. F/O Coverley had been shot down eight days earlier during the first Luftwaffe daylight attack on London, his aircraft crashing near Tonbridge.

It is not this "downing" that I am interested in, but an earlier shooting down of F/O Coverley on 25th August 1940, as recorded by his commanding officer, Squadron Leader Sandy Johnstone in his book Spitfire Into War. Coverley and Johnstone were both pilots of No. 602 City of Glasgow Squadron, a well-trained and well-organised unit formerly based in Scotland. They were sent with their squadron to Westhampnett in Sussex, at the height of the Battle of Britain in August 1940 to replace a depleted Hurricane fighter squadron, and soon found themselves in action.

I read Sandy Johnstone's account in the late 1980s on the recommendation of a friend, and I remember being enthralled by this account of a close call during a sortie on 25th August:

. . . A quick glance in the mirror showed a 109 glued to my tail, when I pulled back hard on the stick, expecting it to pass underneath. But he was a wily character and clung on, while I continued to urge every last ounce of power out of the trusty Merlin. But it was too much for it. I suddenly flicked over in a violent stall turn.

   The manoeuvre must have taken Jerry by surprise, for he hesitated momentarily and, before he could get out of the way, I was almost on top of him as he presented a broadside target, which even I could not miss. I can still see the look of agonised surprise on the German’s face when his canopy shattered around him and the Messerschmitt went into an uncontrollable flat spin, from which it never recovered. I followed him down until he crashed into a spinney on the outskirts of Dorchester and burst into flames.

Earlier in this action, Sandy had also shot down a Messerschmitt Bf 110 twin-engined fighter, as he mentioned that the entire tail unit exploded and the crew baled out. It was noted that the squadron lost two aircraft in the engagement: Sergeant M.H. Sprague baled out over the sea and was rescued a Walrus amphibious aircraft; Flying Officer W.H. (Roger) Coverley baled out of his blazing Spitfire over Gloucestershire, but was unhurt.

In the early 1990s, I discovered the existence of the book The Battle of Britain Then and Now, and soon acquired my own copy. (The Mark V edition.) A must-have for students of the Battle of Britain! As well as an abundance of photographs, and histories of all the fighter aerodromes involved in the Battle, the book contains the daily damage and loss records from all units on both sides involved in the conflict between July and October 1940.

It then occurred to me that I could use the Luftwaffe's daily loss records to tie-in with Sandy Johnstone's account. In theory, yes, but I found that considering the number of aircraft involved -- and the number that crashed into the English Channel -- it is difficult to link losses to a particular squadron, let alone a pilot!

But what of Sandy's Bf 109 that crashed near Dorchester on 25th August 1940, and was so vividly described? Surprisingly, Then and Now has no clear record of it, although a Bf 109 was force-landed at Tatton House Farm, Buckland Ripers, near Weymouth. Could this be the same aircraft? (The claim went to a 152 Squadron pilot, with no mention of 602 Squadron involvement.) Four twin-engined Bf 110s from four different units are listed as missing around the time of the engagement, only one of which crashed on land -- so one of these could have been the aircraft that lost its tail after Johnstone attacked it? But no German aircraft are recorded as having crashed near Dorchester on this day.

The 602 Squadron losses do tally with Sandy's account: Sergeant M. H. Sprague baled out unhurt and was rescued from the sea, while his aircraft crashed into the sea off Portland. But there is a startling difference in the entry for Roger Coverley, which I reproduce in full. Spitfire P9381. Shot down in combat with enemy fighters over Dorchester. Crashed and burned out on Galton Heath 5.47 p.m. Flying Officer W.H. Coverley baled out unhurt. Aircraft a write-off.

Galton Heath appears to have been closer to Warmwell than Dorchester. It is certainly not Gloucestershire, which would be something like 100 miles away to the north west as the crow flies! Sandy Johnstone's recollections are in general remarkably accurate, but this seems like an anomaly. I hate to suggest it, but there is a hint that this might have been a blue on blue incident, but we will probably never know -- and it is not important.

What is important is that 75 years ago a group of young pilots -- supported by capable men and women on the ground -- resisted the onslaught of what had been an unstoppable force of death and destruction, and prevented a hostile invasion of Great Britain. They, The Few, are my heroes: I will always remember them and the sacrifices they made for freedom.

Escoda Versatil Brushes

Earlier in the year, I made some crude comparisons of commonly-available synthetic and synthetic blend watercolour brushes, to help decide what worked best for me. Although the Winsor & Newton Cotman example came top of the pure synthetics, I chose the Pro Arte Connoisseur and W & N Sceptre Gold II synthetic blend brushes as they took the top two places in the trial.

However, I became aware of the Escoda Versatil range of synthetic watercolour brushes around the beginning of the summer, and read some good things about them. When I found that Ken Bromley had started to stock them, I had to try one for myself. I chose a No. 10 round (short handle version). Could it be as good as others had said?

Despite being imported from Spain, it came as a surprise that the Ken Bromley price is less than the No. 10 round in the Pro Arte flagship Prolene Plus range. The Versatil brush appears to be well-made, and looks superb with a bright nickel? ferrule contrasting with what seems to be a highly varnished wooden handle with a black lacquered end. (I love the wood grain effect.) The hairs are usually the giveaway on a synthetic brush, but Escoda have taken the game to a new level and these really do look (and point) like animal hairs -- with a fatter belly and exquisite pointed tip.

The proof comes in the painting, and I found the Versatil brush a delight to use. By varying the pressure, I could paint thick, juicy strokes, or very fine lines. The brush did not display the familiar synthetic characteristic of being reluctant to start, and then delivering too much paint: it handled very much like a brush made with natural hairs. I was actually not worrying about the capability of the brush and was simply enjoying making marks on the paper. Bravo!

I have always liked the idea of synthetic brushes, but as a long-time user of natural hair brushes, I felt that 100 percent synthetics didn't quite deliver the experience I wanted. With the Escoda Versatil, this may have changed! (I now await the response from Daley-Rowney and Pro Arte with interest...)

Watercolour lightfastness tests

One remarkable source of information on the Internet for watercolour painters is the Handprint Web site. It contains a wealth of detail about colour palettes, paints and pigments -- much of it of a technical or scientific nature. (But don't let that put you off.)

Handprint makes a strong case for testing paints in the way they respond to sunlight: the property of lightfastness. It is clear that some pigments are notorious for the way they fade or change colour after a certain amount of exposure to daylight. (These have been recorded as ones to avoid.) The recommendation is that a painter should test any new or unknown paints to ensure that they will not cause disappointment (or worse) after a couple of years.

Should this worry a beginner? I am inclined to say no, but it really depends on what happens to your initial paintings. (Are they for your eyes only -- to be kept filed away -- or will you share them with other people?) It looks as though some form of testing would be a good idea, if only to determine how resistant your first paints are to fading, and whether you need different paints in future.

Lightfastness testing is not as daunting as it sounds. The basic idea is that a piece of watercolour paper (archival and acid-free) is painted with a colour swatch, and this is exposed to natural daylight for at least six months. In order to assess the effects of daylight, either a part of the swatch is masked-off, or a separate piece of paper is painted at the same time and kept in a dark location. At the end of the test, the daylight strip and the masked/separate strip are compared for any changes. As is to be expected, the Handprint site gets quite scientific about the amount of light exposure, but for UK purposes a year should be sufficient to show up any issues.

I have scanned the outcome of my first test, which ran from March 2014 to March 2015. (Thankfully we were blessed with a fairly good summer in south central England in 2014!) I used Cotman 90 lb CP paper from a gummed pad, trimmed to 5 x 7 inches. The paints are predominantly W & N Cotman, although there is at least one W & N Artists' paint. I made masks out of strips of aluminium foil to cover the painted strips before fitting the sheet into the photo frame. The frame was placed in a south-facing (double-glazed) window for maximum light exposure.

The results initially looked a little disappointing. Eight paints (more than half) showed some evidence of fading. Only the three earth colours, Payne's Gray and Intense Green appeared totally lightfast.

However, things are not as bad as they seem. The two green paints in the leftmost column (column 1) were expected to be poor. The top one is the now discontinued W & N Artists' Sap Green: my tube must be close to 25 years old. It is obvious why W & N replaced it with Permanent Sap Green! The bottom paint in the column is Cotman Hooker's Green Dark of a similar vintage, and suffers from similar issues. I now know that I need to keep these tubes away from any paintings that I may later value...

Moving to the right, column 2 shows that both Cadmium Yellow Hue and Hooker's Green Dark have faded a little. This is more apparent in the more diluted pigments. The fading in the yellow may be due to the use of pigment PY97, which Handprint says can suffer a substantial loss of color in tints in some brands. Similarly, convenience greens made with pigment PG7 depend on the lightfastness of the yellow or orange pigments, in this case PY139 -- which is reported to have very slight fading in tints.

Column 3 shows fading in both the Cadmium Red Pale Hue and the Sap Green. Pigments PY65 and PR255 are used in the red, and Handprint says both have excellent lightfastness -- so this is unexpected. The Sap Green uses pigment PY139, so the comments above about Hooker's Green Dark apply.

In column 4 we have Permanent Rose (top) and Yellow Ochre (bottom). The Permanent Rose displays some slight fading. This is pigment PV19 (gamma quinacridone). Handprint notes that some brands of paint are rated very good rather than excellent, which can be down to the pigment suppliers. No fading was apparent in the Yellow Ochre.

The Ultramarine and Burnt Sienna in column 5 showed no obvious fading, nor did the Intense Green and Payne's Gray in column 7.

Finally to column 6. The Burnt Umber on the bottom is fine. The surprise is the Cerulean Blue Hue paint on the top, which showed some slight fading. W & N's Website claims it is pigment PB15 only, but compared next to a half pan of Intense Blue (also PB15 only), they are different animals! There seems to be an additional white pigment in the Cerulean Blue Hue, and whatever it is, it appears to be causing a degree of fading in sunlight. (Could the mystery white pigment become more opaque after prolonged exposure to sunlight, leading to apparent fading?)

I think this test has been useful. It has raised a couple of questions about the pigments that go into Cotman paint, and indeed whether the pigment labelling is as accurate as it should be? Perhaps it serves to illustrate that a budget range does keep costs down by using less expensive pigments? (But a side-by-side test would be useful here.) Reassuringly though, the modern Cotman paints have not faded into oblivion. Phew!

Advice for watercolour beginners?

Part of the fun of being a self-taught beginner in watercolours is the process of experimentation and learning at one's own pace. Inevitably, Internet surfing has featured in my quest for advice and information. One thing I do know: there is no substitute for practice. (As in the adage "Practice makes perfect.") This got me thinking as to whether the number of finished paintings could be used as a guide to a painter's progress?  As in:

• Beginner (the first 9 paintings)

• Novice (between 10 and 99 paintings)

• Intermediate (between 100 and 999 paintings)

• Experienced (more than 999 paintings)

(Mathematically, magnitude 0 is beginner, magnitude 1 is novice, magnitude 2 is intermediate, etc.) The scale is logarithmic, as the assumption is that each level is a step up in proficiency. It would be interesting to know how many paintings a trained artist completes in the course of their studies...

Much of my Internet searching has focussed on recommendations for paper and paint. Repeated advice for beginners seems to be "buy the best" or "buy the best you can afford". (Especially if you find yourself in the Wet Canvas forum!) But what is "best" to a  beginner, who knows very little and has little experience to compare with? "Best" usually equates to "most expensive" -- but why should someone who may not take to watercolour, spend a king's ransom for equipment and materials that they may throw away in frustration?

In general, I consider this to be poor advice, however well-meaning it might be. (Do we advise learner drivers to buy the most expensive car they can afford?) It is the same as telling someone that they need to buy an expensive camera in order to take photographs. Wrong! (Just ask Ken Rockwell.) I have no issue with upgrading to better paper, brushes and paints when experience dictates -- but I want to practise and learn without minding too much about the cost. Similarly, an up-market camera can be a delight to use once the basics are mastered.

Thankfully, there are a few people out there who take a more pragmatic approach to the learning process, and don't insist that starters rush out and buy professional grade materials and equipment. Special mention goes to John Lovett, Dave Hendry at the West Houghton Art Group, and Laura Jolliffe for some gentle beginner's recommendations. (These were the first matches in my Google search.)

Upcycled water pots

Danone's Activia yoghourt is usually part of my weekday lunch diet. When I spotted their creamy range in the squat pots in the local supermarket, I knew that I could put the empty containers to good use!

Over the years, I have used a number of different ``waste'' containers for craft purposes, but I didn't consider any of them really suitable for water. Either they were not stable enough (risk of spillage), or the wrong sort or material (dark plastic). I've never been that keen about empty jam jars and the like, perhaps because it takes some effort to remove the label on the outside -- and also the risk of breakage.

These pots seem to fit the role well. They are made from a thin, translucent plastic, which means that they are lightweight and can be easily carried around in the field. The plastic also seems resilient to cracking. The squat proportions mean a relatively low centre of gravity, which should make it more difficult to accidentally knock over or spill the contents. They hold a modest amount of liquid -- around 100 millilitres -- so great for en plein air and smallish paintings (but probably a little limiting for larger studio work). I have not yet noticed any problem with pigment staining, and a rinse with clean water and a wipe leaves them ready for the next use.

The Cotman Sketchers' Pocket Box

The Winsor & Newton Cotman Sketchers' Pocket Box is their entry-level offering in an extensive range of watercolour half-pan sets. Although it has some faults, it is surprisingly good value for money and is an excellent starting point for someone who wishes to explore watercolour painting on a budget.

As supplied, the set comes in a small cardboard box with an enclosed leaflet listing the complete range of Cotman watercolour paints.  The pocket box itself is well-made in a hard plastic that has a quality feel to it. Inside, there are 12 half-pans of watercolour paint, and a smallish (size 4?) travelling brush which fits in the narrow compartment when the lid is closed. The inside of the lid can be used as a mixing palette. The half-pans simply rely on friction and gravity to retain them in their compartments -- so take care not to tilt the box too much!

The selection of paints appears to have been made with some thought: all my examples contained Lemon Yellow, Cadmium Yellow Hue, Cadmium Red Pale Hue, Alizarin Crimson Hue, Ultramarine, Intense Blue, Viridian Hue, Sap Green, Yellow Ochre, Burnt Sienna, Burnt Umber and Chinese White. This looks to be an example of a Split Primary Palette, with an additional pair of greens and three common earth colours.  (The only bizarre choice is the Chinese White!) Moreover, of the 12 paints, seven of them are single-pigment colours, three are two-pigment, and one (Sap Green) is three-pigment.

Any of the half-pans can easily be substituted with W & N Artists'/Professional half-pans, as well as half-pans from the Daler-Rowney ranges. Although a little larger, empty half-pans from Ken Bromley will also fit if you prefer to fill your pans from tube colours. (At least one person has removed the half-pans altogether and filled the compartments directly with tube colours.)

Although designed as a compact paintbox for quick watercolour sketches in the field, the Sketchers' Pocket Box is equally useful for larger paintings.  It will lie flat on a table, and a size 10 round brush is a good fit for the half-pans. It would be sensible to use an external mixing palette though, as the interior of the lid only has three modest-sized compartments. Several people have recommended that the Chinese White half-pan be replaced by Payne's Gray to provide a more useful paint. A small blob of Blu Tac or silcone sealer will help fix the half-pans in the compartments and prevent their damage or loss in case of an accident.

In summary, good points are the price, selection of paints, compactness and build-quality. Bad points are the lack of a fixing for the half-pans, and the tiny brush. I wish I had one of these years ago!

Watercolour Brush Trials

It is widely accepted that the best watercolour brushes are made from sable hair. But the prices of pure sable brushes can be eye-wateringly expensive, especially when one goes beyond a size 6 round. Thankfully, the brush manufacturers know that not everyone can -- or wants to -- afford pure sable; so there are alternatives, including brushes made with entirely synthetic hairs, and brushes combining both sable and synthetic hairs.

Persuaded by at least one manufacturer's glossy brochure that synthetic brushes were nearly as good as sable, I devised a simple (non-scientific) test that ought to allow direct comparison of the results: I would charge up each brush in turn with paint, and paint a line across a piece of watercolour paper. By labelling each stripe, I would know which brush had created it, and I could compare the lines/stripes with each other to see how the brushes had performed.  The unscientific parts of the trial would be that I would not measure how much paint each brush took up, nor could I be sure that I was using the same pressure on each brush to paint the line.

Since I already had several different makes of brush in size 6 round, and further examples weren't going to cost me silly money for what might be a one-time use, I settled on size 6 round for this experiment. As the image above shows, I used a Cotman series 111, a Pro Arte Prolene Plus, a Winsor & Newton Sceptre Gold II, a Ken Bromley Artists' Value Profile (identical to a Pro Arte Prolene), a Pro Arte Connoisseur, a Daler-Rowney Aquafine, and a Daler-Rowney System 3. The paper I used was Ken Bromley Practice Paper (apparently made by Fabriano and excellent value for a rag paper). I had an old 21 ml tube of Winsor & Newton Cotman Hooker's Green Dark, so I had no qualms about mixing up a generous quantity of paint for the test.

To perform the test, I first stuck the hairy end of each brush under a running cold water tap to wash out the
substance used to keep the hairs together before sale, and gave them a couple of shakes to remove most of the water. I took a 1/16 sheet (5.5 by 7.5 inches) of paper, and using it in landscape, used an HB pencil to write the name of each brush in the left margin -- spaced about 3/4 inch apart.  Now I could start painting. Using each brush in turn in the order on the paper, I swirled it around the palette of Hooker's Green Dark until it was charged up with paint, and then painted a horizontal stripe on the paper starting at the left hand edge under the writing. I then picked up the next brush in the list and repeated the exercise, until I had run out of brushes to test.

Once the watercolour paper had fully dried, I was able assess the results, and compare the stripes. After some deliberation, I rated the stripes from 1 to 7, with 1 being the best, and 7 the worst. Things I looked for were evenness of colour along the length of the stripe, consistency of stripe (no pale horizontal bands), and colour the full width of the paper. As can be seen from the image above, first place was awarded to the W & N Sceptre Gold II, with the Pro Arte Connoisseur coming second.  An impressive third place finish went to the W & N Cotman, and the Daler-Rowney System 3 brush ranked in fourth place.  Fifth, sixth, and seventh places went to the Pro Arte Prolene Plus, the Daler-Rowney Aquafine, and the Ken Bromley Artists' Value Profile respectively.

A couple of observations.  Most of the pure synthetic brushes displayed the (apparently known) tendency to unload their paint at the beginning of the stroke, resulting in a darkish blob to start and a failure to produce an even stripe on the right side of the paper.  The Cotman brush behaved least like this, which was why it was awarded third place. Secondly, I have seen a recommendation somewhere on the Internet that a synthetic brush size should be two sizes bigger than its sable equivalent, to compensate for the difference in performance. As can be seen in the image of the brushes, the two Daler-Rowney brushes on the right have longer hairs, and are indeed closer in size to other manufacturers' No. 8 rounds. Should I adjust the scoring to account for this? Oh well, I did say this wasn't scientific!

For actual painting, I alternate between Sceptre Gold II and Prolene Plus, as these are the brushes I have most examples of at present.  I find the Sceptre Gold II brushes better for watercolour glazing techniques.

The Full Monty?

No, only a partial! This line-up of shady characters comes from the extensive range of Monty's Models figures, now sold by Dart Castings. All are cast in white metal in a scale of 4 millimetres to 1 foot (1:76.2 scale), and are supplied unpainted.

Each figure is accurately and cleanly cast with little sign of flash, but each will usually show some mould lines which should be carefully removed before painting. Many of the figures come supplied with a cast-on spigot on the sole of one foot to aid in fixing them in place once painted.

The sculpting is generally of a high standard, some of it being exquisite. It is hard to believe that these figures are no more than 24 millimetres high, and one could be mistaken for thinking that they are 7 mm/1 foot (1:43) scale.

I painted them using acrylic paints. After initial preparation, they were spray-painted with matt black car acrylic paint from an aerosol can to form the undercoat/shadow layer. Allowing 24 hours for the black to dry, medium grey and light grey artists' tube acrylic paint (mixed from Daler-Rowney System 3) was dry-brushed over the black base to form mid-tones and high-lights. The resulting monochrome figures (grisaille) were then coloured using glazes made from Winsor & Newton Galeria tube acrylic paints -- mainly selecting those paints that are classified as either transparent or semi-transparent. (The essential ingredient in the glazes is an 8:1 water to W & N Galeria Matt Medium solution to dilute the paint, rather than plain water.) Dark colours might only need one or two glaze layers, but light colours might need four or more. The important thing is to let the underpainting show through the glazes. All the brush painting was done with Pro Arte Acrylix brushes.

The Galeria paint and matt medium is not actually dead flat, but usually dries with a satin sheen. To cure this, I used an inexpensive Reeves Series R2 No 1 sable brush to apply well-shaken Daler-Rowney Matt Soluble Varnish to garments, although footwear and greasetop hats can be left as they are. This produces a superb matt finish where it is needed, and allows the underpainting to be seen.

My initial inspiration came from Brian Fayle's site, where I found his comments on shadows especially thought-provoking. The black undercoat and the dry-brushing is very much influenced by Brian's methods, as is the use of artists' acrylic paint in tubes. I like to think that this painting technique falls somewhere between the cartoon-like finish resulting from using a single, relatively thick and opaque coat of modellers' paint; and the incredible models produced by expert miniature figure painters with superb eyesight and rock steady hands!  Each figure took around two to three hours of painting to complete. The method is ideal for batch painting of half a dozen figures or more at one time, given the rapid drying time of acrylic paint. At a viewing distance of about a foot (30 cm), they seem convincing enough for model diorama use.