P51s are Shiny Metal
Ken Koellner
On the topic of WWII fighters. I always see p51s (in movies,
documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
polished metal finish. Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense. A lot of
the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though. Does anyone know
the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
color?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe he's just a little insane, like painters or composers."
-Miracle on 34th Street
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August Horvath
>
>On the topic of WWII fighters.... Does anyone know
>the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
>color?
With respect to the USAAC/USAAF, their aircraft were natural metal
(silver) in the late 30s until May 1940, when the P-40 went into service
with olive-drab over grey paint. In Feb 1941 this became standard for
all tactical types. Various exceptions arose during WW2, including
all-black for night fighters, all-powder-blue for high-altitude recon
aircraft, desert sand over grey for arid-climate theaters. Aircraft
acquired from (or rejected by) the RAF were usually flown in RAF
camoflauge but with US markings. There were also unofficial variations.
Around the end of 1943 the USAAF began leaving most of their a/c
unpainted. Most P-51Ds were used in 1944-45, that's why they were
silver for the most part; most P-51As-Cs were olive and grey. Most
daytime combat aircraft stayed unpainted into the 50s.
Of course, there is a different story for the US Navy and for every
foreign air arm.
Some observers have pointed out that, historically, the amount of
attention given to camoflauging combat aircraft is correlated with
the extent to which there are international tensions (in peacetime)
and with the extent to which the relevant air arm's air superiority
is challenged (in wartime). As far as I know, no one has attempted
a systematic documentation of this.
august horvath <augu...@usc.edu>
Robert J. Granvin
|>
|> On the topic of WWII fighters. I always see p51s (in movies,
|> documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
|> polished metal finish. Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
|> painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
|> Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense. A lot of
|> the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though. Does anyone know
|> the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
|> color?
The criteria was basically just nearing the end of the war (certainly
there was a lot more to it, such as local conditions, but that's the
big one).
You'll also notice that as 1944 was rolling to an end, all manner of
aircraft started showing up fully or partially unpainted - fighters,
bombers, transports.
The reason being pretty simple - in many theaters, air superiority had
been claimed without any argument. The threat by flak was was diminishing
as the Axis forces were dealing with a retreating campaign. The camoflage
paint became more and more unncessary as the increased visibility of the
unpainted aircraft became immaterial. Additionally, paint is heavy, and
the loss of the paint made the aircraft lighter (and therefore slightly
better). Eliminating the OD paint from B-25s, for example, saved over
300 pounds in weight - the weight of two additional crewmen or three more
100 lb bombs, for example. Or more fuel (drool!)
Although the aircraft look polished, they aren't. The aluminum is just
"natural." It does have a bit of a reflective nature to it, but it's
not a true shine. Film from the era shows the aircraft to be much more
reflective than they really were. (Restored natural aluminum aircraft
today are MUCH shinier than their WWII counterpart - Part of that is
theatrics (because natural aluminum has a tendency to look "unkept") and
part of it is necessity - it's necessary to protect that exposed aluminum
SOMEHOW, and a coat of wax/polish (actually, 7 or more coats - you'll never
complain about waxing your car again after applying seven coats and a sealer
to a B-25 ... :-) does wonders for preservation and protection from the
elements.
--
\\ Robert J. Granvin User Services Specialist
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota r...@stat.umn.edu
25312-mc killop
>documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
>polished metal finish. Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
>painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
>Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense. A lot of
>the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though. Does anyone know
>the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
>color?
The criteria was camouflage. During WWII the intial camouflage for
USAAF combat aircraft was matte brown and matte green on the upper
surfaces and light matte gray on the lower surfaces. The theory was
that the green/brown camouflage on the upper surfaces would cause the
aircraft to "disappear" when it was on the ground or flying above
the ground; the gray was so the aircraft would "disappear" when
seen from below. All aircraft were painted by the manufacturer as
part of the contract to build the aircraft. Sometime in late 1942,
it was decided to change the upper camouflage to just plain matte green
(more commonly known as OD or olive drab). There were actually two
different shades of green used, one for aircraft based in England and
the other for aircraft used in the rest of the world. There were also
exceptions to these rules, e.g., night fighters were painted gloss
black and then there was a brief adventure with sand colored aircraft
in North Africa.
As the war progressed, the USAAF gained air supremecy in both
Europe and the Pacific and it was decided to do away with
camouflage paint because it really wasn't needed (very few attacks
on our bases) and just added weight and maintenance to the aircraft.
So sometime in late 1943 or early 1944, the manufacturers were
instructed to stop painting the aircraft and deliver them
unpainted, i.e., natural metal.
The USN/USMC did not eliminate camouflage during the war. In 1939,
the Navy applied their first camouflage paint to combat aircraft, a
matte light gray. Sometime in 1940 or 1941, the scheme was changed to
a matte tri-color scheme with sea blue on all surfaces seen from
above, a light blue down the middle of the fuselage and white
undersurfaces. In 1944 or 1945 this was changed to a gloss dark
blue on all Navy aircraft and this scheme was used to about 1956 or
1957.
Marc Kwiatkowski {Host Software-AIX}
> On the topic of WWII fighters. I always see p51s (in movies,
> documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
> polished metal finish. Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
> painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
> Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense. A lot of
> the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though. Does anyone know
> the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
> color?
Hey, I can answer this, sort of. The obvious reason is that a completely
painted plane weighs a bit more (If my memory is correct, I believe
@ 30lbs for a fighter). The other reason was that in winter over
northern Europe, forest camoflage didn't. I heard an interview with
a P47 pilot on Our Century where he described mentioning in passing
to his ground crew that he had seen snow on the continent in his last
sortie. The next morning his plane had been stripped of all paint.
He was telling the anecdote to demonstrate the dedication of his crew,
but it also gives at least one reason why paint was stripped.
Now, in pure conjecture mode, I imagine that in the European theatre
every pound counted for fighters flying bomber escorts. Pilots probably
first discovered that they could dispense with paint in winter, and then
some probably chose to leave it off in all seasons, as they felt the weight
savings more than offset the stealth. In the Pacific theatre there
was no snow, fighters mostly flew CAS and carrier defense, not long distance
bomber escorts, and had very little cover to hide in, so camoflage
was more important than weight savings.
Finally, I think the bare metal scheme was just a U.S. Army Air Corp.
practice. P-51s used by the RAF were painted in standard RAF camoflage.
It seems that USAAC squadrons had a lot more leeway than those of the US Navy,
the RAF or the Luftwaffe, as is evidenced by the ribald nose art and
variety of paint schemes employed by the former. Even within the same
fighter group, USAAC planes often employed radically different schemes.
Compare Gabreski's scheme for his P-47 (Messy looking grey on grey
top with bare metal under, and probably the rattiest looking invasion
stripes ever seen) with other planes in the 56th fighter group (bare
metal and olive drab). If anyone can comment more authoritatively on
this I'd like to hear it.
--
Marc P. Kwiatkowski /|/| Ultra Network Technologies
internet: ma...@ultra.com \______/ | | W.A.S.T.E. 101 Daggett Drive
uucp: ...!ames!ultra!marc / (__) \ | | San Jose, CA 95134 USA
voice: 408 922 0100 x249 \|\|
dave pierson
detected. If "Mark I eyeball" detection is the threat, paintwork is critical.
If its an electronic battlefield, paint is irrelavant, until loaded with
ferrite (iron ball....).
Somewhere authoritative, i saw that research during WWII had shown that
natural/polished a/c were LESS visible, in search lights, than black painted.
Seems the natural metal scattered the beam off angle, away from the observer.
Flat black (the obvious choice) actually gave more visibility. (Wish i had the
source, but, at the it struck me as authritative.) (resemblance between this
line of reasoning/research and some aspects of stealth are not coincidental...)
(Who gets to mention the wing mounted "invisibility lighting", whose name i
forget???)
thanks
dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd |I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA
01775 pie...@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles
Mike Campbell
>
>
> On the topic of WWII fighters. I always see p51s (in movies,
> documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
> polished metal finish. Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
> painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
> Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense. A lot of
> the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though. Does anyone know
> the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
> color?
From '43 or so on the Yanks figured that they could save considerable
weight on their a/c by leaving them "polished". Only black anti-glare
panels were painted. I saw some figures many years ago in an old
"Mechano " magazine dating from 1946 or '47 which gave the weight
savings as a few hundred pounds on the B-17 & B-24's. This would
translate to faster climb, extra payload and/or less fuel consumption.
Who the hell needs camoflage @ 24,000 feet with 10 mile long contrails
giving away your position anyway??
The other main reason for painting a/c is corrosion prevention. Since
these a/c were not pressurised (hence had less fatigue problem, not
that the engineers knew about this then anyway), and had a shortish
life expectancy, this might have been seen as a minor loss.
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
Michael Corvin
camoflage paint from the fighters and bombers, as has been mentioned.
The bare aluminum also gave a small drag reduction compared to the
matt paint and, compounding this, was easier to keep clean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin PP-ASEL, PP-G zw...@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=============== My views, not Martin Marietta's ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Daniel R. Masys
>
>From '43 or so on the Yanks figured that they could save considerable
>weight on their a/c by leaving them "polished".
>Who needs camoflage @ 24,000 feet with 10 mile long contrails
>giving away your position anyway??
>
An owner-pilot friend of mine who is in his 60's was an infantry footsoldier
in the post-Normandy-invasion days of 1944. He said that it was quite
a sight to look up and see the flashes of reflected sunlight off of the
Eighth Air Force bomber and fighter formations high overhead on sunny
days. He said most of the grunts thought they'd rather be up there than
down in the mud, except when they would march by overlooks where they
could see miles of fields with the shiny wreckage of P-51's and Jugs
dotting the landscape.
Dan Masys
ma...@nlm.nih.gov
Tony Zugates
You will recall also that only during the last part of the war, B29
bombers leaving to bomb what was left of Japan from Pacific islands
(hard fought for islands, no?) were also configured without paint.
But camo is not usually meant for deterring threats from below..if
paint was used, it was light (light blue, white etc)...instead,
parked planes needed to blend into the ground.
There was not much of a threat left to aircraft parked on the tarmac
towards the end of the war.
The decimated Imperial Navy and Army had not enough left to
raid airbases with great frequency.
This in addition to the other many posts re: weight....
cool subject....
Alexandre Fortin
>.
Most of the USAAF fighters were left with there shiny metal finish
because this lowered drag and gave speeds 20 to 30 mph higher than
a camouflaged plane.
Alexandre Fortin
Dan Sorenson
>Most of the USAAF fighters were left with there shiny metal finish
>because this lowered drag and gave speeds 20 to 30 mph higher than
>a camouflaged plane.
Car buffs <ahem!> may recall that racing autos are often waxed
to reduce turbulence and improve airflow over the body. As I recall, one
land-speed-record attempt picked up another five mph or so which was
attributed almost solely to having waxed the car.
Then there's Mach 2+ flight, where the wax would certainly melt
and run off the skin due to friction forces heating it up.
What is SOP today for Mach 1.5+ aircraft? For that matter, were
aircraft maintainence crews given tubs of Turtle Wax to coat the planes
with back in World War II?
< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1...@exnet.iastate.edu vik...@iastate.edu >
< ISU only censors what I read, not what I say. Don't blame them. >
< "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother >
< to my girlfriend, about me. "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
dave pierson
Sorenson) writes, in part:
>Alexandre Fortin <T7...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> writes:
>
>>Most of the USAAF fighters were left with there shiny metal finish
>>because this lowered drag and gave speeds 20 to 30 mph higher than
>>a camouflaged plane.
>
> Car buffs <ahem!> may recall that racing autos are often waxed
>to reduce turbulence and improve airflow over the body.
First time i went to Oshkosh fly in was during the aftermath of the
fuel crisis. Lotsa people selling waxes, with numbers proposing that
they would decrease fuel consumption/increase range/increase speed.
Anybody know what the Round_the_World flight did?
> Then there's Mach 2+ flight, where the wax would certainly melt
>and run off the skin due to friction forces heating it up.
>
> What is SOP today for Mach 1.5+ aircraft? For that matter, were
>aircraft maintainence crews given tubs of Turtle Wax to coat the planes
>with back in World War II?
Interesting question. One I have pondered since visiting Offut and
Dayton and looking at the SR71s. They have exposed (tho flush)
"Phillips" head fasteners, notably on the leading edge, to fasten the
RAM wedges. The also have numerous "patches" (apparently repairs),
simply rivetted on. with protruding rivets and the material of the
patch about 0.125" thick. Seems curious, but there it is.
Discounting "disinformation", I _speculate_ that at those speeds, the
skin of the a/c becomes irrelavant. Whats really doing the flying is
the boundary layer, so the roughnesses are hidden inside a "stalled"
layer.
dave...@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
>What is SOP today for Mach 1.5+ aircraft?
Navy aircraft (max mach is another subject) are "tactical grey" for the most
part. This paint feels slightly rough to the touch.
Dave Hyde
dave...@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."
Edward B Stokes
Toby . Hughes
>In a computer game I have (Falcon3.0), the wingmen occasionally say "Alpha
Mike Foxtrot". A,M,F, What does that mean? It's not in the manual.
>
No, I wouldn't think it would be. :) The 'A' means "adios." You can
probably figure out the 'M.F.' from that. It's a VERY unofficial way of
saying goodbye to the adversary. Your game is probably programmed to use
it as a punctuation following a kill.
TH
You may find your self behind the wheel of a large automobile...
: Interesting question. One I have pondered since visiting Offut and
: Dayton and looking at the SR71s. They have exposed (tho flush)
: "Phillips" head fasteners, notably on the leading edge, to fasten the
: RAM wedges. The also have numerous "patches" (apparently repairs),
: simply rivetted on. with protruding rivets and the material of the
: patch about 0.125" thick. Seems curious, but there it is.
:
: Discounting "disinformation", I _speculate_ that at those speeds, the
: skin of the a/c becomes irrelavant. Whats really doing the flying is
: the boundary layer, so the roughnesses are hidden inside a "stalled"
: layer.
The way I got it from a fluid dynamicist was that at the altitudes at which
the '71 operates the air is so thin that it doesn't act so much like a
viscous fluid as like a bunch of particles, making slick, laminar-flow type
surfaces unnecesary. It *is* interesting to see how bumpy the fastest known
airplane is.
--Craig
--
go...@pixar.com
At least Congress doesn't make death worse every year.
ecrj...@economics.adelaide.edu.au
> documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
> polished metal finish. Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
> painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
> Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense. A lot of
> the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though. Does anyone know
> the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
> color?
P-51s were painted for camoflage when they expected opposition. However once
air superiority has been gained then you can go to a lower drag metal finish
which gives you greater speed/range. Once you have a huge air superiority
being seen doesn't worry you as much as it does when you have significant
opposition. Some later Spits went unpainted as did many B-17's etc. I am not
sure but due to their relative invulnerability (for several reasons including
altitude flown at, gun defences, lack of real opposition at the time of entry
into the war) I can't recall seeing a camouflaged B-29. Of course I could be
wrong.
regs
Rob
John McDermott,119,7673770,
"In yo` face!" challenge to the Luftwaffe, that is, a kind of challenge.
Quite a few NMF P-51's were covered with OD by pilots who were less
convinced that the Luftwaffe was completely dead.
The P-80A, a contemporary of the P-51, was painted in order to get more
speed out of it.
John
Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>
I believe the P80A's were natural metal. The prototype was camouflaged,
and the first production airplane was done in grey lacquer. I believe
that airplane was "filled" with a high-solids primer to smooth out the
production variations. That, and a bigger engine, made it faster than
the XP80.
It's also harder to inspect a painted aircraft for fatigue cracks, though
loose rivets sometimes show up better.
Then again, maybe the powers that were just figured that not having to mask
and paint would increase the production rate more than the loss rate.
Pragmatists, they were, back then.
J. Matthews