Question about military paint jobs
SamVanga
I was at the local model shop lately looking at the display case of built
models. In general they were aircraft, from WWI to WWII especially. As with
the vast majority of models I've seen in shops, the paint jobs looked like the
unit just rolled off the assembly line. All the paint nice and even and
generally as good looking as a modern Blue Angel aircraft.
In reality, were military paint jobs that good looking in the WW periods? I
mean, I know they got wear as the machines got used. But, when first painted,
did the paint jobs look that good?
I am doing some WWI and WWII aircraft (then some tanks, etc.). Were they
painted by hand or using paintbrushes or what?
Thomas Parson
States Army. Our vehicles, the older ones with woodland camo, were all done
by hand with a brush. Any and all touch up was the same. My very first
Deuce and a half had paint so thick on it, it was durned near bullet proof!
hehe
However, when we went to Saudi, they were all re-done with an air gun at a
paint shop. Also, the vehicles we got that were brand new, all had almost
identical camo jobs, again sprayed on.
Hope this helps, and I didn't step on your toes with my answer.
Tom
--
T. E. Parson
Black Hills Rocketry Club
NAR Chapter#638
NAR #78955 L2
AMA #767628
.
"SamVanga" <samv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030219184001...@mb-fj.aol.com...
Royabulgaf
However, the performance of a dirty aircraft declines rapidly. Even though the
paint gets worn, they are usually kept relatively clean. Kim M
steve gallacci
> In reality, were military paint jobs that good looking in the WW periods? I
> mean, I know they got wear as the machines got used. But, when first painted,
> did the paint jobs look that good?
>
usually in a very regular and tidy fashion, so at least momentarily,
they really would look pretty crisp. And operationally, many units had
the time and resource to keep the machines at least cleaned, so even
many operational machines, except for exhaust or oil leaks from running
it right then and that day's dirt, were still very fresh looking. Some
more modern paints are very durable and stain resistant, so even a well
used machine may still look pretty good (I saw a RAF Jaguar that had
some leading edges worn to nearly bare metal, the paint very neatly
pealed rather than fade/abraded but the rest of the finish was still
clean and had a remarkably uniform matte finish with no sign of
rubbing/polishing anywhere)
Mike
>
> In reality, were military paint jobs that good looking in the WW periods? I
> mean, I know they got wear as the machines got used. But, when first painted,
> did the paint jobs look that good?
>
Yes, they could be. Off the line they were generally spray painted but
even though they may not have been automotive quality finishes you must
realize that looking at a model, say in 1/48, is like being 48 feet away
from the real thing so the paint probably would look a lot better from
that distance.
Also not all models are built to one standard, some people like to
build them pristine, maybe even more so that they actually were in real
life, even right out of the factory. Sort of like diecasts.
> I am doing some WWI and WWII aircraft (then some tanks, etc.). Were they
> painted by hand or using paintbrushes or what?
I would suspect they were spray painted at the factory and could
either be repainted in the field with a hand brush or spray, depending
on conditions and what equipment was available.
--
Mike Dougherty
Toronto, Ontario
CANADA
m.davis
with invasion day stripes. Having been in the military, I think I can safely
say that said work would be pawned off on the misfits and such in the group,
sort of punishment. Somebody has to clean the latrine right? Anyway, my point
being that there probably was not much effort in taping and masking. To me a
great example can be seen in Band of Brothers 1st ep a c-47 rolls by and the
wing stripes look like they were rolled on in minutes, probably a very accurate
representation. Lets face it, not all of us are Rembrandts. Think about this,
fighter sqds. bomber sqds. troop transport, liaison a/c, all the RAF a/c, all
painted with stripes in a short period of time. You usually see an a/c with
invasion stripes that are masked and perfect and this is hardly realistic. I am
going to be supervising the painting of a c-47 in it's original d-day colors in
the next few weeks, and one of the things I lobbied for was not to paint the
invasion stripes perfect. I convinced for a more accurate interpretation. To be
truthful the least realistic attribute on our models could well be our paint
jobs.
any fool can make a rule, and every fool will follow it
don't be a fool!!!
Ron
mask and do a neat job. While many transport units used brushes, mops
or brooms. there's a pic somewhere in my pile of references that shows
a Mossie having stripes added with push brooms and the white paint is
definately chunky looking.
SamVanga
So, it seems that in most opinions, the machines would look surprisingly
"professional" in terms of paint jobs (not counting dirt, etc. from use).
I confess, I'm surprised. I would have expected more like what Thomas P.
experienced.
Many thanks to everyone for their answers.
Mike
> Hi again,
>
> So, it seems that in most opinions, the machines would look surprisingly
> "professional" in terms of paint jobs (not counting dirt, etc. from use).
>
> I confess, I'm surprised. I would have expected more like what Thomas P.
> experienced.
Well it's common sense really. How long would it take to paint even a
single seat fighter by hand compared to spraying it? On all sides speed
was essential during production. Also painting by hand would add quite a
bit of weight of paint which would impair performance.
Rob Gronovius
compressor powered spray gun (until it broke). Once we started using CARC, only
touch up was done by hand, the main repainting took place at a paint booth with
spray guns.
Rob Gronovius
Visit my motor pool in the www.armorama.com gallery
Don Stauffer
looked like they were fresh out of shop (no surprise). Paints in use at
that time chalked and faded faster than do paints used currently. And,
in any war situation, repairing battle damage and other maintainance is
far more important than repainting or polishing. However, when fresh
they were pretty nice. Also, planes kept in hanger or below decks
weathered slower than planes continually kept in sunlight.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
OXMORON1
metal" airplanes, the finish could contain aluminum painted areas, especially
B-45, C-97,C-121, C-124, B-57a/c.
As the finish wore due to weathering the primer under the finish would start to
show through the aluminum paint, slight yellow or green "glow"through the
topcoat.
This was more apparent on gear doors and access panels.
Oxmoron1
m.davis
mask and do a neat job. While many transport units used brushes, mops
or brooms. there's a pic somewhere in my pile of references that shows
a Mossie having stripes added with push brooms and the white paint is
definately chunky looking.
I was going to bring up the size issue, stripes on a single engine fighter
would be easier to mask, especially when compared to a c-47. The manpower issue
begs many questions that I don't have verifiable data for. What is number of
ground crew per a/c, for say a fighter a transport or a bomber? and who is
available to paint etc.
SamVanga
>single seat fighter by hand compared to spraying it?
I would have thought no paint at all would be quicker yet (a la US aircraft in
the later years of WWII).
Moreover, I imagine paintbrushes are far easier to issue than airbrushes with
the attendent power/cleaning materials etc.
SamVanga
>by
>compressor powered spray gun (until it broke). Once we started using CARC,
>only
>touch up was done by hand, the main repainting took place at a paint booth
>with
>spray guns.
Hi Rob,
Aha! This is more toward what I was expecting.
However, what is "CARC"?
SamVanga
>they were pretty nice. Also, planes kept in hanger or below decks
>weathered slower than planes continually kept in sunlight.
Yeah, I can see the logic. I just wondered especailly after reading some
accounts of combat vets. But of course, they were usually talking about
machines that had been in use for a while, like what you said.
Kurt Laughlin
"SamVanga" <samv...@aol.com> wrote
> However, what is "CARC"?
Chemical Agent Resistant Coating. A catalyst-cure polyurethane finish.
KL
Shane Weier
"SamVanga" wrote
> I was at the local model shop lately looking at the display case of
built
> models. In general they were aircraft, from WWI to WWII especially. As
with
> the vast majority of models I've seen in shops, the paint jobs looked like
the
> unit just rolled off the assembly line. All the paint nice and even and
> generally as good looking as a modern Blue Angel aircraft.
>
> In reality, were military paint jobs that good looking in the WW
periods? I
> mean, I know they got wear as the machines got used. But, when first
painted,
> did the paint jobs look that good?
WW1 aircraft would for the most part be *glossy* in finish and they would
remain in reasonably good condition throughout their time in the front line.
Fabric coverings lose effectiveness quickly if allowed to get and stay wet
or dirty, so the aircraft were almost invariably hangared when not in use.
Of course there are exceptions, which includes
* the likelihood that the lower fuselage and longerons would be oilstained
on *rotary* engined aircraft, and
* markings which were not factory applied (individual or unit markings)
might well be applied with paint which covers badly or flakes off the glossy
doped surface quickly and
* some of the less glamourous aircraft (recce, spotter etc) stayed in longer
service with crappier covering than front line fighters
Shane
Mike
>>
> I would have thought no paint at all would be quicker yet (a la US aircraft in
> the later years of WWII).
Unfortunately there was a reason they painted camouflage on an
aircraft and why the US often didn't use it late in the war.
Not to mention it's anti-corrosion use.
> Moreover, I imagine paintbrushes are far easier to issue than airbrushes with
> the attendent power/cleaning materials etc.
We're talking factories here, not in(on?) the field. That was your
question. Even in the field I doubt anyone painted the whole aircraft by
hand very often, excluding theatre markings, codes and insignia. About
the only circumstance I can think of where a aircraft was painted by
hand all over during WWII was with winter camouflage by the Russians and
Germans.
Also, there are spray guns that do not need any more than muscle power
to operate and if they had paint they'd most likely have paint thinner.
I don't know if anyone used these types of spray guns but they do exist.
Mike
>>Old US woodland camouflage was painted either by hand
> Aha! This is more toward what I was expecting.
It sounds to me like he's talking armour not aircraft, there's a big
difference.
Ron
knew drag hurt their performance and knew that performance mattered,
thus they tended to paint more carefully. Transports and bombers didn't
need that extra little bit so the ground crews didn't worry about drag
from rough paint jobs.
SamVanga
Oh.
Wonder if they got the EPA's approval for that <grin>.
SamVanga
>the only circumstance I can think of where a aircraft was painted by
>hand all over during WWII was with winter camouflage by the Russians and
>Germans.
That must be the context of some of my photos. The paint jobs don't look very
finished but they are Russian and German aircraft.
SamVanga
>difference.
>
Actually, though I'm doing a/c right now, I plan some vehicles next. I may
have forgotten to note that in my question.
SamVanga
Really?? I never would have guessed that at all. I was thinking more of a
dyed fabric look than anything else. Good to know.
>Fabric coverings lose effectiveness quickly if allowed to get and stay wet
>or dirty,
That makes sense. I guess I just thought they retarped (as it were) quite
often.
Did they repair holes with basic patches, like on clothes? Or did they replace
sections of fabric?
Rob Gronovius
>
>Oh.
>
>Wonder if they got the EPA's approval for that <grin>.
OSHA plays hell when when using this stuff though.
Kurt Laughlin
"SamVanga" <samv...@aol.com> wrote
> >Chemical Agent Resistant Coating. A catalyst-cure polyurethane finish.
>
> Oh.
>
> Wonder if they got the EPA's approval for that <grin>.
Yes, and OSHA's as well. It's a Government of laws, remember? Even VX
shipments have to follow DOT rules. When we ship spent naval nuclear fuel,
our containers must meet 10 CFR 50 (well, I forget the section, but it's 10
CFR. . .) When the Navy thought that they were above the law and could
store SNF in Idaho as they pleased - in the interest of "national
security" - they were disabused of the notion by the Federal courts and only
avoided sanctions by coming to a consent decree with the state.
KL
Shane Weier
"SamVanga" wrote
> >WW1 aircraft would for the most part be *glossy* in finish
>
> Really?? I never would have guessed that at all. I was thinking more of
a
> dyed fabric look than anything else. Good to know.
Acetate based dopes are *very* glossy. There are hundreds, maybe thousands
of photos of WW1 aircraft in which it's possible to see details clearly
reflected in the wings for example.
> >Fabric coverings lose effectiveness quickly if allowed to get and stay
wet
> >or dirty,
>
> That makes sense. I guess I just thought they retarped (as it were) quite
> often.
Linen is (and was) expensive stuff, and covering an airframe (especially a
wing) was difficult and time consuming. Much more likely that a "tired"
aircraft (fabric sagging, requiring too frequent re-rigging and truing,
that sort of thing) would be sent back to a depot and rebuilt
> Did they repair holes with basic patches, like on clothes? Or did they
replace
> sections of fabric?
Bullet holes with patches, often humourously marked with the oppositions
national marking (for example Piel's Fokker D.VII with roundels over the
bullet holes)
Larger sections *might* be repaired in the field, but I'd guess that if the
damage was big enough to warrant more than a bullet patch it'd usually
warrant either returning to depot or a new wing. It did happen though -
there are two photos of Bruno Loerzers Albatros D.III on it's nose in a
field - both show the upper port wingtip from the inboard end of the aileron
to the tip has been recovered with clear doped linen. I'd bet that was done
in the field, since the depots would almost certainly repaint.
Shane
>