Jump to content

British Camo Rubber masks


wally7506

Recommended Posts

Understood, Nick, but can you expand on how 'a form of linoleum' is used for cutting large painting stencils? This is the first instance I can recall this material being discussed for this use. I'm just trying to picture how what I know about linoleum being used for masking.

See pic in post # 62 and note apparent rigidity of the mats which are being used in a vertical alignment with supports. Other materials were discussed in earlier posts.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything was in very short supply during WW2. That doesn't mean that very significant quantities of rubber were not imported, and used for a wide range of products considered as being of strategic importance. Not least condoms: which as far as I know were not made of any kind of linoleum.

Don't think I said that very significant quantities of rubber were not imported did I? Or that condoms were made of linoleum. There were similar materials that could be used for stencil mats just as well and I refer you to earlier descriptions of them in this thread suggesting a composite material.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick: you did say that rubber was restricted to areas critical to the war effort: as argued above, painting aircraft was just that. So was protecting pitot probes and cannon barrels from dirt and small insects.

It's possible that masks were sometimes made of linoleum, but I'd be more convinced was there the slightest suggestion of it in the literature or from those who used these mats. Until then it is only another idea put forward in the face of the evidence, ideas put forward because the originator thinks there "isn't a lick of sense" to the use of rubber. Not an attitude that seems warranted. Maybe (as I think) that's because it was more sensible than it appears to some, or maybe because history isn't always sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick: you did say that rubber was restricted to areas critical to the war effort: as argued above, painting aircraft was just that. So was protecting pitot probes and cannon barrels from dirt and small insects.

It's possible that masks were sometimes made of linoleum, but I'd be more convinced was there the slightest suggestion of it in the literature or from those who used these mats. Until then it is only another idea put forward in the face of the evidence, ideas put forward because the originator thinks there "isn't a lick of sense" to the use of rubber. Not an attitude that seems warranted. Maybe (as I think) that's because it was more sensible than it appears to some, or maybe because history isn't always sensible.

A form of linoleum rather than linoleum per se. Oh, I think there is a "lick of sense" to the use of rubber because it is still used for heavy duty industrial paint and sandblasting stencils.

The point is that there were other materials that could have been used too, equally as effective, and therefore not a burden on availability or shortages.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that there were other materials that could have been used too, equally as effective, and therefore not a burden on availability or shortages.

Nick

Yes that has been my main query plus the vexed issue of the remarkable paucity of images of the process. I don't doubt the usage of rubber mats as such but I do have some doubts about how widespread their usage was. The problem with documents is that my historian's training tells me that a single source while interesting cannot be taken as absolute proof and also that eyewitness accounts sometimes are repeated to the point where people lose awareness that one account is just being recycled rather than supported by new evidence. Apropos that I find the accounts of how the Angels of Mons story took off in the popular mind even when the author Arthur Machen kept insisting that he had made it up as a piece of fiction. Plus of course there is always the well recognised tendency for people to embroider and perfect the stories they retell. So I don't doubt that mats were used but I just wonder at the uniformity of the usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to dive in here.

I do believe rubber mats were used as guides.

I tend to agree with MilneBay, vis just how widespread was their use?

I used to be a frequent visitor to the MUs at Sydenham [belfast] and Aldergrove in the late 1960s up to mid 1970s They did a lot of spray painting there for the RN, RAF and Shorts. If the rubber mats were in wide spread use why did the practice not continue post war at these MUs for never once did I see a mat of any sort being used. The only time I saw paper and tape used was to cover areas not to be painted but was adjoining a to-be-painted area, eg canopy, but not u/c.

I watched Phantoms receiving grey/green camo, The painter chalked the outline onto the airframe then sprayed to the line. For a hard line betwixt top an lower greys he held a piece of cardboard in one hand and moved it along as he sprayed with the other hand.

At Aldergrove there were plenty of other types of machines, both air and land which got spray painted. As a one of the two major MUs in N.I. I would have thought they'd have had mats for use on the machines which were sent at regular times for them to repaint.

The scene was the same at Sydenham where I went to see Buccaneers receiving RAF camo. Sydenham was solely responsible for the refurb of RN Buccannerrs going to the RAF. No mats did I ever see and that was place where they really would have been needed as there were lots of apprentices there.

In later life, whilst involved with restoration of vehicles I have seen experienced spray painters spray the design and logo on the side of a 40ft trailer, without marking it out first, and the result has been near perfect. Experience counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black Knight,I've just had an e-mail from Edgar and he asked me to pop this in.

If you would like to do me a favour, on the "rubber mats" thread, someone is asking why the mats didn't continue post-war; well, they did, since Hawker used them on the Hunter, but they became unnecessary because they were able to revert to freehand spraying, with a gloss varnish over the top, which smoothed out any roughness; it's all in the files!

Edgar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I've seen the subject mentioned a couple of times in this enormous thread, but what is the current feeling on the use of mats in *heavy bombers*? Were they used or because of unwieldiness of big mats were the patterns sprayed freehand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen the subject mentioned a couple of times in this enormous thread, but what is the current feeling on the use of mats in *heavy bombers*? Were they used or because of unwieldiness of big mats were the patterns sprayed freehand?

I've attached a couple of photos that show the upper surfaces of RCAF Halifaxes and a Lancaster II. It's a toss-up. The photos aren't super sharp, so it's hard to say it was absolutely one way or the other. Note that it's not a consistent painting style across the board.

This Halifax looks either masked or very tightly sprayed:

PL-22506Halifax434Sqn.jpg

This Halifax clearly has some wider-edged free-hand spraying on the area closest to the camera, but the area forward of it and on the wing looks to be more tighter-sprayed, and not masked.

PL-28238Halifax428Sqn.jpg

On this Lancaster II the wing area aft of the groundcrew might have the edges tightly spray-outlined first and then filled in with with normal width coverage:

PL-26362LancasterII408Sqn.jpg

Edited by Steve in Ottawa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just to add a little more confusion. When the powers that be wanted the underside of the aircraft in a black and white configuration the instructions were sent to all the Squadrons that they wanted half black half white. Some painted one wing black the other white, others put the demarcation line down the center of the fuselage other painted 3/4 of the wing black and the other side white. Invasion stripes were not production paint but done on the airfield. Some ground crew masked, some free hand painted. When paint schemes were devised and sent to Squadrons it depended on how much paint they had, so variations, even among the same Squadron were not uncommon. ( this came from a remarkable Hurricane Pilot whom I had the pleasure to "chat to" ) So, to strive for perfection is an ideal but is it true to real life. To sumerise NIcks post "If a modeller wants to paint a model with large overspray, I won't argue against it, or get all precious; it's a model, it's his (or her) model, so it's fine by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as well as being an addicted modeller I have also been in the aviation industry for 46 years and have been a licensed engineer for 36 years and compliance manager for 12 years .

In my time I have done everything their is to do in civil aviation and have done a lot in military support too (and am currently still doing.

I have recently been involved with the certification of 2 Hurricane mk XII to flying condition after restoration.

I can confirm that the application of the surface finish there were definitive specifications laid down by the governmental body of the time (Directorate of Technical Development AKA dtd) this specified camouflage patterns for individual aircraft types and the main scheme being the 'A' scheme, there it was also stipulated what percentage of aircraft were to be painted in the 'B' scheme which was a reversal and mirror image of the 'A' scheme for a fighter typically 1 in 5 or 20%.

The dtd also defined the rubber matting shapes to be cut to achieve this and where the matting was to be placed ( depending on the aircraft size, there was a tolerance, for a Lancaster this could have been as much as 6") and has been stated above the matting was simply turned over and the base colour reversed for green to brown etc.

This usually meant that if panels or flight controls where swapped from one aircraft to another there was a mismatch and disruption in the camouflage lines.

These mats were always used on the production line, usually used by the MUs and seldom used (or even supplied to) the operating stations.

My advice is to be extremely cautious if you're a rivet counter because the way an aircraft is painted rarely stays that way in service even today, as mods are embodied, repairs carried out, panels replaced and external markings painted over and new ones applied.

If you're a rivet counter, paint to a photo as that is a snap shot of the aircraft at that moment in time although you will only see a part of the aircraft unless there's several photos of it from differing angles.

If you're not too fussy then paint they way you like it as no-one will ever truthfully be able to tell you if it's right or wrong, it is common to see varying depths of overspray especially up close when the mats have been used and especially when repairs have been done in the field with no matting.

The Hurricanes we painted look like there's very little overspray as is was all masked off then a little bit of overspray painted on later by a spray gun with a smaller nozzle, many modern military aircraft there's little or no overspray as so many parts must be masked to prevent them being sprayed at all, it's easier to mask the whole thing.

Do what pleases you as that's the object of the whole exercise.

Personally I don't worry too much about it, to me the weathering is more important as that's what adds the realism.

Edited by skyscooter
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a Halifax outer wing at Park Royal Coachworks.

Whilst I do believe that masks were used on many aircraft at many plants I don't think this camouflage was sprayed that way. It looks as if the outline has been tightly sprayed and then the colour blocked in to me.

outer_wing_spraying_zpsec9c2cfd.jpg

This is just one factory producing outer wings for one type. What went on elsewhere may well have been quite different.

Cheers

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That particular photo looks obviously posed, too much so to be particularly helpful - especially as she's painting the roundel anyway. However, I've not been able to find any reference to mats being used on the Halifax.

I posted it to illustrate how the camouflage has been sprayed. How is that not particulary helpful? You are concentrating on something completely irrelevant, the lady 'spraying' the roundel.

Incidentally the photograph is from the collection of the late Alfred Hill, not a photographer but a senior draughtsman at Park Royal Vehicles. It may well be posed but that doesn't alter the technique used to spray the camouflage, which I believe is the subject of this thread.

Cheers

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted it to illustrate how the camouflage has been sprayed. How is that not particulary helpful?

It isn't helpful because the photo does not illustrate the camouflage being sprayed. You are looking at the finished product and making an assumption about the technique. It may be a fair assumption, I may even agree with it, but the photo does not illustrate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't helpful because the photo does not illustrate the camouflage being sprayed. You are looking at the finished product and making an assumption about the technique. It may be a fair assumption, I may even agree with it, but the photo does not illustrate it.

I don't know why I bothered.

Of course if someone has some photos from one of the factories actually showing the spraying process on a Halifax wing I'd love to see them. In the absence of such we can look at what evidence we do have. That wing does not look to have been masked. It is an assumption, but an evidence based assumption.

This wouldn't be much of a thread or discussion if all the photographs of camouflage not actually being sprayed were deleted!

Sometimes prima facie evidence is not available and we have to fall back on something else. I'm happy that ANY photographs, albeit taken by a senior draughtsman, showing the inside of the plant have become available to us. I'm not sure how easy it was for anybody, assuming they could afford a camera, to walk around a wartime production facility taking photographs.

Cheers

Steve

Edited by Stonar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

Although I have just recently posted the following in another discussion from Behind The Scenes In Our Aircraft Industry by F. T. Meacock A.F.R.Ae.S., M.J.Inst.E. As found in the Odhams Press Limited 1944 publication, The Secrets of Other People's Jobs. It is worth adding to this discussion since it shows Halifax aircraft being sprayed in a dope shop.

Fabric covering and doping

So far no mention has been made of the use of fabric as a covering for the wings or fuselage. As already stated, thin sheet metal is commonly employed for this purpose nowadays, but in some aeroplanes fabric is used quite extensively. In most aeroplanes however, it is used for the covering of such parts as the rudder and elevators of the tail unit. Thus before leaving the subject of main component assemblies it is advisable to visit the department in which this fabric covering is put on to the structure. Here, as would be expected, the work is carried out almost entirely by women, numbers of whom may be seen busily cutting the fabric to shape and skilfully sewing it on to the structure.

Of itself, the fabric covering is insufficient and must be made waterproof and "drum-tight" by the application of a special paint known as dope. This is done in the dope shop, where the covered components are sprayed with dope by means of spray guns. The atmosphere of this shop is noticeable for its strong smell of "teardrops" from the amyl acetate in the dope. Unless a mask is worn, this atmosphere would soon become very uncomfortable, though extractor fans are provided to change the air-frequency (Fig, 3).

It must not be though that only fabric-covered components are treated with a dope finish. Light alloy skin-covered components will also be given such a finish, not because they need waterproofing or tightening, but to add the well-known camouflage finish. This work is also carried out in the dope shops.

................

16023903369_b44ec63db9_o.jpg

MONSTER SHAPES IN THE DOPE SHOP

FIG. 3. A pungent odour and the ceaseless hissing of sprayers greets visitors to the dope shop, which is carefully shut away from the rest of the works to prevent fire. Above is seen spraying of the centre plane section. Spraying serves a two-fold purpose––camouflage and preservation.

Although the above image is of poor quality as sourced from a 88mm x 121mm book print. It does show an unposed view of the spraying of Halifax aircraft as seen in both the middle & background of this image.

At the same time unless stencilling is being applied, the worker in the foreground appears to be touching up the wing camouflage demarcation by brush. No masking of any kind, paper or rubber etc appears to be present on aircraft components or anywhere else in this image.

Cheers,

Daniel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hesitate to post this, partly because I think I may be repeating myself, but if anyone has Merrick's book take a look at page 197 (Appendix 2).

Top right show a female spraying the roundel on a Halifax wing (not she is not wearing a spray mask).

The caption reads:

"The large dimensions of the wing roundel are emphasised by the female paint sprayer applying the dark blue, it's outer boundary lone marked bu a paint resistant material, possibly of a wax composition…The fact that [rest] of the wing is still bare metal ay this stage was a common practice in Rootes Group". If nothing else it's suggests that in this particular factory (at least) a form of masking (i.e. a wax composition) was used for at least this operation, if no other. Secondly it suggests that not all production plants painted their aircraft at the same stage in the production process. There are other photographs in the book that illustrate Halifax production lines.

Furthermore if one turns to the photograph (taken at Speke) on the bottom left on page 198 of the aforesaid book, the description of the photographs states that it shows the "mixed state of painting of finished components at this stage of the war" i.e between april and July 1943. The line of aircraft in this photograph are all at vastly different states of painting. There is not one aircraft painted to the same extent as another. In fact Merrick states on another part of page 198 that the point at which camouflage was painted "varied between manufacturers". It's therefore possible the the method of camouflage application may also have varied between manufacturers.

I draw no conclusions from all this, other than to think that arguments about how exactly any individual aircraft, at any particular factory was painted, and at what time and what order, fairly

fruitless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... it's outer boundary line marked by a paint resistant material, possibly of a wax composition…

I just looked at that photograph. I'm glad he said 'possibly' in that sentence.

Cheers

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... it's outer boundary line marked by a paint resistant material, possibly of a wax composition…

I just looked at that photograph. I'm glad he said 'possibly' in that sentence.

Cheers

Steve

Not sure what point you are making. However, Merrick's comment merely illustrates the fact that most of what we are discussing is based on little hard evidence and a lot of conjecture.

Edited by chaddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just received this, via PM, from a member, who wishes to remain anonymous, and, seeing the angst that this has, at times, generated, I can't blame him:-

"My late Mum worked on the Mosquito at two locations in East London. The first in Leyton E10 were she was trained as a sprayer. Later she worked in Walthamstow E17 at the Wrighton Factory I have a photograph of her and work mates sitting in front of the 1000th Fuselage built there. Now for the reason for sending this by PM.She told me that she could not get on with spraying as the smells that came off the HIDES that were used as Mats used for masking the Fuselage! My mother worked in Leather trade both before and after the War so she did know a lot about Leather from hides to Brief Cases used by the City toff. The smell given off these hides was as she explained because they were not top quality and were in fact not fully tanned so mixed with paint and thinners gave off a the terrible smell.
I have avoided posting on the Rubber Mats thread as it throws out another idea for some to pull apart and as I do not know if this was used in other factories or just where she worked I now have no way of knowing. So yes I agree with you Mask were used what ever they were made of."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what point you are making. However, Merrick's comment merely illustrates the fact that most of what we are discussing is based on little hard evidence and a lot of conjecture.

Just that looking at the photograph there is absolutely no way to ascertain what the 'paint resistant material' might be. I wonder where even the possibility of a 'wax composition' came from.

The only reasonable supposition is that given the position of the material around the roundel, it is indeed some kind of masking for the circular edge of the roundel. It certainly wouldn't stop overspray onto the surrounding, unpainted, area. Some is visible in the photograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just that looking at the photograph there is absolutely no way to ascertain what the 'paint resistant material' might be. I wonder where even the possibility of a 'wax composition' came from.

The only reasonable supposition is that given the position of the material around the roundel, it is indeed some kind of masking for the circular edge of the roundel. It certainly wouldn't stop overspray onto the surrounding, unpainted, area. Some is visible in the photograph.

Well you are correct in saying that there is no way to ascertain exactly what that masking on the roundel is, and I've already agreed with that. In fact Merrick himself is openly admitting to speculating what it might be. Of course Merrick, being a respected aviation historian, may have had grounds to suppose it might be " a wax composition".

However, the fact remains that, in that particular instance, a form of mask is undeniably being used.

Edited by chaddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the fact remains that, in that particular instance, a form of mask is undeniably being used.

Indeed. The outline of the roundel is most definitely masked. It is also interesting that at this facility at least the roundel was applied before the camouflage.

I was simply wondering where the idea of a masking material 'possibly of a wax composition' came from. I have just about everything Merrick has ever published and respect his opinions, but neither he, nor anyone else should be immune from critical analysis, particularly as the composition of the masking seems to be acknowledged conjecture on his part. He uses the word 'possibly' and if he does indeed have grounds to suppose it might be a wax composition he does not allow the reader to be privy to them.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic and many may not even be able to view the photograph in question.

I certainly didn't intend to slaughter, or even slap on the rump, any sacred cows :)

Cheers

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...