Jump to content

British Camo Rubber masks


wally7506

Recommended Posts

Well, there we are, then, all those people who saw them, used them, cut them out, and manufactured them, didn't know their native language, and spelt it r-u-b-b-e-r, when they really meant f-el-t. Marvellous what a 21st-century education can do for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until we actually hear from ALL those people (or at least a fuller sampling), and hence learn what every single one of the individual companies in the UK industry used over what was a considerable period, it's still an open matter. For myself, I accept completely that rubber mats were used - in some companies for at least some of the time. It has been specifically stated that HP didn't use masks, thus confirming that some variation existed within the industry. That doesn't tell me that Avro did use felt mats, nor foreclose it as a possibility. I think it interesting that the author should have introduced this detail, which does not come from the immediately available material on the subject. Because of this I am prepared to continue with the assumption that it came from his research rather than as a bolt from the blue.

Do we have anyone with access to the Avro Heritage Group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but we are getting into semantics, here; for years, we've had the argument that the mats never existed. Several eye-witness reports have persuaded many that they did exist, with those refusing to accept the idea clinging to fanciful notions about raw materials availability (or not.) We now have a not-so-subtle shift away from "They never existed" to a grudging acceptance, but with a need to argue about the material used. Quite frankly, who cares? If the mats existed, they existed, and would have been used; anything that follows is argument, for the sake of argument, and is nothing short of tiresome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that is an interesting shot. It looks like it would be very challenging to achieve both a clean paint line and a consistent series of properly round rings to produce the finished roundel.

There must have been a more difficult way to paint roundels. But if there was, I can't think of it.

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

I don't know that it contributes much but 1. there's a rubber mask in this picture and 2. this guy has found a perhaps more difficult way to paint a roundel....

whitley_painting.jpg

Rickard, J (22 November 2009), Painting an Armstrong Whitworth Whitley , http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pictures_whitley_painting.html

Re-reading some of this thread - yes, rubber masks were used to assist in the painting of aircraft but not in every case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that is an interesting shot. It looks like it would be very challenging to achieve both a clean paint line and a consistent series of properly round rings to produce the finished roundel.

There must have been a more difficult way to paint roundels. But if there was, I can't think of it.

Roundels in wartime were probably not nearly as neat as we would expect them to be on our models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the mats existed, they existed, and would have been used; anything that follows is argument, for the sake of argument, and is nothing short of tiresome.

I don't deny they existed (never have). As to how frequently, during what time period, and by whom they were *used*, that's an entirely different story. If they were widely used, then every single aircraft painted with them would have exactly the same camouflage pattern. But we just don't see that evidenced by photos of most types of a/c. Tiresome it may be to you, but your argument says they existed, period, and thus they were used. This is not necessarily a black and white topic. Because they existed does not mean they were always and everywhere at all times used. I own a shotgun. Shotguns are used to kill wild game. Therefore I must kill wild game. Not so. Association does not imply causality.

Edited by Jennings Heilig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I own a car, which I can use, or not, as the mood takes me, however, if a worker is told to carry out any task, in a time of war, he/she will do as told, or kiss goodbye to the jobs, even risk legal action. They were not free to take those mats, and use them, or not, as they saw fit; the Air Ministry saw the finish as being of paramount importance, and any company, figuratively, sticking two fingers up at them, and ignoring them, would have got very short shrift. As to the camouflage being the same, sets would have had a finite life, needing replacements, and instructions were always that the pattern was a guide, not set in concrete, so variations were permitted. You may not like me finding some of these "anti" arguments tiresome, but all we ever get is conjecture, and guesswork; in the last 40 years, in which we've talked, in this country, about these mats, not one person has come forward with a witness, who's said, "Yes, we had the mats, but never bothered to use them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I own a car, which I can use, or not, as the mood takes me, however, if a worker is told to carry out any task, in a time of war, he/she will do as told, or kiss goodbye to the jobs, even risk legal action. <snip> You may not like me finding some of these "anti" arguments tiresome, but all we ever get is conjecture, and guesswork; in the last 40 years, in which we've talked, in this country, about these mats, not one person has come forward with a witness, who's said, "Yes, we had the mats, but never bothered to use them."

Yet we have no enduring record or relic from any who were supposed to have been using them.

I tender for your study a photograph of a S'marine Spitfire Mk.Vc which was on display in Chicago in May, 1942.

403959352.jpg

It should by all the standing orders have been camouflaged via the use of those masks. Even more imperative as it was earmarked to go to an allied country for testing and exhibition. Yet we see a non-standard demarcation replete with mistakes!

403959353.jpg

Surely some painter lost his skilled position at the works for 'slipping' and the supervisor must have been reduced to, say, sweeper for letting that through? Why I wonder didn't the ticket-writer make the much needed correction? NMJ I suppose.

Nevertheless, there it is for all to see. The pro-mask argument is most doubtful in this instance of a famous aircraft.

Then there's the restoration community which to a outfit/person don't use masks/mats despite your insistence there were very definite instructions as to their employment. Deepens the mystery doesn't it?

G

Edited by Vanroon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's to say that wasn't resprayed at depot level before shipping to US? (i.e. not at manufacturer?)

Post war Hunters - hard edge demarcation from factory - then soft edge as paint was refinished by MUs.

Just my thoughts - I don't have any axe to grind either way - but am disappointed by the somewhat adversarial tone of some of the posts in this thread :(

Iain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the photos. I don't think there's ever been an argument against the existence of both hard-edge and soft-edge paint jobs. I've seen both, even on the same airframe.

I don't have the references at hand (one of the SAM monographs, I believe), but I recall reading that the edges could either be hard-edged or blended, at the discretion of the manufacturer. This was because the early, less-skilled labour force had a problem with creating 'rough textured' overspray which affected performance and/or increased labour costs to rectify the problems. As the painters skill and experience levels increased, they were able to spray the blended edges with smoother transitiions, minimizing the need for clean up. The masks, whatever their composition, allowed for properly patterned paint jobs without the rough overspray.

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

Gentlemen, my point was/is; here is a presentation aircraft, slated for display, with paint that looks like it was painted by a human being using his/her eye, rather than a pristine example according to regulations.

If ever there was a case when those rules should have been applied it is in examples like this.

Iain, this aircraft did spend a good deal of its life in maintenance units. Whether on not painting was carried out is a moot point. More likely it was being mechanically/electrically fettled for it's role of testing in the USA. I do know that plywood stencils in the shape of giant French curves were reportedly employed at MUs when matching paint patterns, so sharp edges would be likely from that source as well.

The stray spray line in the second pic was never any where near a matt ot stencil, it was the unassisted hand of man which made that. Never to be chastised, certainly not either it seems.

G

Edited by Vanroon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

G,

There's plenty of other 1942 and later photos showing both soft-edged and hard-edged camouflage in use, so I'm still not sure what general point you're trying to make here, This one presentation airframe, despite whatever level it's raised it to, doesn't represent the whole of the Spitfire painting story. I don't really know how presentation aircraft were tracked and treated during production at the factories. But I guess I'd be a bit surprised if the workers were told to treat it extra special just because the town of Dribblin on the Bib had raised the money for it, or that it was going to the USA.

I can show you a crystal-clear 1940 Spitfire at Rockliffe in Ottawa with absolute hard-edged camouflage. I can show you Spitfire and other photos two years later with soft-edged camouflage. As I said, if the company's work force could produce acceptable quality paint jobs without using masking mats, then the manufacturers had the option to mask or not.

All the manufacturing techniques and expertise had to have evolved during the war to streamline the processes and reduce man-hours needed - same as today. After all, these folks were in the business to build airplanes and make money by doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing that there were sharp and soft demarcations. That's very plain to the eye, I seek why aircraft differ so much.

My journey which led me to this discussion came about when my (then [1988]) 12 year old asked me how the camouflage was painted. I presumed that some form of pattern marking was used. Like a good student, he set about researching this technique. Together we read everything in the library that pertained to aircraft manufacture.

We even asked my clients and Dads airforce mates for their input as to how this may have been accomplished. No-one agreed on the masking, in fact ex-DAP and CAC workers poo-pooed the concept. All agreed on rubber shortages. No tyres for their push-bikes.

We scoured period magazines as we found them and discovered nothing to indicate there were painting masks actively employed. One person mentioned the French curves being used in his MU paint shop. Another suggested whip edged sail canvas similar to that they used in the shipyard. Another claims to have seen a light steel frame which may have been used (at Holdens, Port Melbourne, Australia) similar to the painting frames on the pre-war Pontiac line, but never saw it used.

Nevertheless, I made masks for our models, first from manila card, then rubber backed curtain material. All the while seeking the truth.

Some time later, after reading a book which had photos of pre-painted assemblies at CB and other manufactories (Westlands), say 1991, my son then observed that no matter the airframe, everyone was as different as puppies in a litter, rather than manufactured to a set form. He showed a couple of photos depicting a line up of fuselages, in one they were all in primer and bare sheet, the next, the same airframes (numbers visible) were all painted, but of what we could see, every one differed from the others.

That to date no two airframes of any similar production block has identical paintwork has been seem (by me) has me doubting the practice. These planes (sub-assemblies) were being painted by skilled auto-finishers, accustomed to two-tone painting of car bodies, even in Australia. Too old to fight another war, they were building fighting machines for their childrens generation. Manpower was not in abundance at the time, especially skilled operators of any equipment.

Passing similarities, such as seen in tortoise-shell cats, dalmatian dogs, Galloway or Holstein cattle make aircraft types all look similar, but not the same. It's like there's some organic reason for their differences, man.

G

Edited by Vanroon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

G,

Ah, I think I get what you're saying now. <mafia-gangster_voice> Your kid, he's askin' too many questions... </mafia-gangster_voice>

Seriously, though, great to see a young person was interested in this kind of stuff. Well done, dad!

I think that the rubber aspect of this great thread is a red herring, dragging people off the more important overall 'masking mats or not?' question.

I did a quick Google search for early aircraft and came up with this shot - Spitfire I's in formation:

spitfire-site-65sqn-1939-7084461.jpg

The pattern similarities of first three aircraft in this shot, to me, really illustrates well that the aircraft were indeed masked, using some sort of material. That material wasn't necessarily positioned exactly in the same place or at the same angle for each paint job, but it did produce notably similar demarcation lines. #1 and 2 in the line-up, to use the words of one of my old college teachers, "are as close to each other as 'damn' is to swearing".

Here's some Mk.XIIs that show more variation. Hard to tell if they're hard or soft edged:

Supermarine_Spitfire_F_Mk_XIIs_of_41_Sqn.jpg

but, depending on your viewpoint, they either show similarities or differences in the paint application.

What happened in the paint shop when they went to freehand painting is anybody's guess as to how the pattern was marked out on the airframe. Clearly, there was a lot of acceptable variation programmed into the process.

For my own Spitfire modelling, I have produced four different 1/48 models, all using the same reusable masking mats that I created for the process. I was aware of the potential 'cookie cutter' pattern I could end up with. For each paint job I subtly shifted and twisted and repositioned the mask components just slightly, to avoid this problem. All four aircraft look 'just enough' different to be very satisfying to my eye.

<speculation for discussion> All that to say that if we can accept that these paint mask patterns were not necessarily produced in hard fixed shapes, like a sheet of wood or a very thick mat, then it helps to explain some of the variations that existed. If they were actually made more like thinner, flexible sheets to both cover and conform to the airframe shape, then it's easier to see how the resulting patterns would not necessarily be identical between aircraft. Maybe these mats didn't cover the entire surface, but were just wide enough to mark out the pattern and give the painter some leeway for overspray, similar to what we do in our scale modelling?

And, who knows, there may have been more than one set of mats in use, to allow cleaning and drying. or multiple applications at one time, or more rapid painting in sequence. Again, that is a total WAG, as I have no idea how big the paint shops were or how long it took the workers to mask and paint the aircraft. </speculation for discussion>

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

Steve, don't waste your time; we now know that all those people, who 50/60 years ago, told us how they made, used, and saw mats, were telling lies.

We know that the man who said that he went to work for Hawker's, on Hunters, where he saw them using mats, and was told that it was exactly the same way that they painted Hurricanes, was also lying.

We know that the companies who, when receiving complaints about their painting standards, themselves complained that their best staff had been taken into the forces, leaving them with unskilled, even infirm, staff, were lying.

We know that the Air Ministry, when advocating the use of mats, were ignored, and, when Supermarine put instructions, to use mats, on drawings from Mk.I to 21, just did it in order to use up spare ink.

We know that Ian Huntley, when he said that one particular company bevelled the edges of their mats, slightly, to give a slight blend, was lying.

We know that the RAF, when Tornadoes were new, when they wrote in a Yearbook about how the airframes were painted using mats "which was the way it was done during the war" were also lying.

It's becoming clear, to me, that the time I spend, asking questions, talking to the people who were actually here, doing the work in the U.K., going through files and archives in order to find information that I (obviously wrongly) thought was unknown, is completely wasted, and I should desist, and leave the field clear for those who, from a range of thousands of miles, have all of the information at their fingertips.

Edgar

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edgar, I agree with where you are coming from but let it go mate, and for goodness sake don't make any rash statements like the sky is generally blue and bears s**t in the woods, the nay sayers will never agree !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one agreed on the masking, in fact ex-DAP and CAC workers poo-pooed the concept. All agreed on rubber shortages. No tyres for their push-bikes.

We scoured period magazines as we found them and discovered nothing to indicate there were painting masks actively employed.

I think I see what you mean....

the fact that you couldn't find something means it couldn't have existed......

if one aircraft differed a bit from others, it means no masks could have been used anywhere......

if no-one at DAP or CAC (in Australia) knew about them, then they couldn't have existed anywhere...........

hellooooo........ do you see something silly here?

(I got those Spitfire pictures the same day that you did and came to the opposite conclusion.... a-ha here's a Spitfire sprayed most likely without masks - it shows they weren't all done with masks!)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

As to my lack of proof due to distance, I say the only proof to come to light in this discussion, was a grainy scan of a P-40 wing being sprayed at the Curtiss works. That photo is also proof that pictures could be made in the volatile painting booths in the aircraft industrial process.

Steve, nice photos, they were once part of the basis of my original contention that airframes were masked.

Tho' possibly our esteemed researcher has access to all that great data, as good authors well might. Where are mentions in established histories? One more page, another aisle of books. Yet some feel it fit to sneer at my modest efforts. There are an awful lot of Brits who were on the business end of the Blitz et al who chose our country to see out their days, they are ignorable too? Because it was them to whom I was talking.

Perhaps there was widespread and punctilious application of said devices, yet apparently nothing of their memory last except sporadic spotting of orders in archives and rock-solid memories. Where was the allocation of the horse-hair sourced? No mention in horsy tales of cropping manes and tails for the war effort? Apparently rubber was in abundance in the British Isles, not here tho.

Ed, I made exactly that last point in my post. As to DAP CAC employees being unreliable witnesses, a line-up of Beaufort nose sections on rail cars in one publication exhibited the most near to identical painting in my recollection.

Until a decent verifiable account is laid out for public inspection, my doubts shall remain, as no doubt shall Edgars conviction.

G

Edited by Vanroon
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...