D-Day stripes

[Simon Cornes]

Something occurred to me recently and I don't know if I'm right or not. In 1944 RAF fighters were painted with paint which had a distinct sheen when dry. The black and white stripes were applied on top and were I believe intended to be temporary markings so were applied in distemper? On that basis they would be dead matt in appearance.I have just finished a Tempest with a dead matt varnish and I know it should really be satin - but I'm not going to varnish it again but I wonder whether I am right about the lack of sheen with the black and white paint? I would be interested to know.

Simon

[ben_m]

I would assume the dissemper was very matt, yes.

I seem to recall some aircraft that were painted at maintenance units for delivery after the stripes were reduced to fuselage underside only, and they were done in normal paint, requiring over-painting when they needed to be removed.

[old thumper]

The D Day stripes were generally temporary matt paint slapped on with big brushes, while most modellers (myself included) give their D-Day stripes nice crisp edges and smooth sprayed surfaces they were in reality not neatly painted on. At least that is what I have always been told.

I do wonder about the stripes on aircraft such as the Mustang as the wings on such aircraft often had their panel lines smoothed over with filler and sprayed silver. After doing all that why spoil it all by adding a coat of rough paint?

[Edgar]

85,000 gallons of paint (not distemper) were specially ordered for the "distinctive markings," and the likeliest material is the same "paint, semi-permanent (D.T.D.441,)" that was used, in 1940, for the return of the black port wing. The painting, on June 4th., might well have been hurried, but replacement aircraft, after June 6th., would have come from M.U.s, with slightly more time to make a better fist of it.
Not generally known is that, when the stripes had served their purpose, consideration was given to allowing them to fade out naturally, since their removal, from fabric and wood, was likely to damage the underlying surfaces, which doesn't sound like a temporary, easily-removable material.

[plasmahal]

Don't forget the scale effect on finishes. A 1/72 aircraft of that era would look matt. It's your model at the end of it so finish how you feel looks best.

[Stonar]

I do wonder about the stripes on aircraft such as the Mustang as the wings on such aircraft often had their panel lines smoothed over with filler and sprayed silver. After doing all that why spoil it all by adding a coat of rough paint?

Better to lose a few mph off the top speed than be shot down by 'friendly' fire. The Royal Navy in particular had a reputation for blazing away at anything with wings, including its own FAA aircraft, and there was a lot of Navy in the Channel on D-Day and thereafter

For an example of the sort of casualties 'friendly' fire could exact on an air force, the Luftwaffe experience during operartion Bodenplatte is a salutary lesson.

Cheers

Steve

Edited December 7, 2014 by Stonar

[Graham Boak]

Not just the RN but also the USN and indeed the USAAF. Not that the RAF was innocent of these matters. Before Bodenplatte there was the Sicily landings. And oh so many more individual if less spectacular cases.

[MikeC]

Don't forget the scale effect on finishes. A 1/72 aircraft of that era would look matt. It's your model at the end of it so finish how you feel looks best.

Not just the scale effect of that sheen and shade of paint. The "ragged edges" that people seem intent on insisting were prevalent on 6 June were generally reasonably well done, despite the urgency, and any deviation would have to be significant to be visible when scaled down to 1:72 or 1:48.

[old thumper]

Better to lose a few mph off the top speed than be shot down by 'friendly' fire. The Royal Navy in particular had a reputation for blazing away at anything with wings, including its own FAA aircraft, and there was a lot of Navy in the Channel on D-Day and thereafter

For an example of the sort of casualties 'friendly' fire could exact on an air force, the Luftwaffe experience during operartion Bodenplatte is a salutary lesson.

Cheers

Steve

To begin with I will start by saying that I don't know enough to go into detail. Basically while researching a previous Mustang build I discovered that at least the front half of the upper wing of the P51 had the panel lines and rivet marks filled, sanded smooth and painted over with silver paint and that this was done during manufacture. My understanding is that the laminar flow wing of the Mustang required a smooth surface, without which it would not perform properly.

I am not an aerospace engineer, I only build models so will go no further on this.

[Work In Progress]

The Mustang is better with the panel lines filled on the front portion of the wing, and this was indeed the factory treatment, but lots have subsequently flown with natural metal unfilled wings and they don't fall out of the sky. However we are getting a long way from invasion stripes.

[Graham Boak]

There are photos showing a very ragged effect, or just a slightly ragged effect. I suspect modellers are drawn to such schemes because they are a little more interesting than the neat ones. I make no comment on their possible abilities - personally I paint the wings white and add black transfer strip. Making broad-brush (sorry) assumptions about the general quality of these stripes is unwise, but I suspect particularly dodgy ones would be tidied up once the initial rush had died down, and it is particularly unwise to base comments on the quality seen on photographs showing the work still in progress!

Similarly, it is entirely normal to have a higher standard of smoothness for the leading portion of the wing. Given the life-and-death nature of the exercise, and military discipline, I think it unlikely that wartime P-51s had the degraded finish seen on civilian warbirds.

[old thumper]

85,000 gallons of paint (not distemper) were specially ordered for the "distinctive markings," and the likeliest material is the same "paint, semi-permanent (D.T.D.441,)" that was used, in 1940, for the return of the black port wing. The painting, on June 4th., might well have been hurried, but replacement aircraft, after June 6th., would have come from M.U.s, with slightly more time to make a better fist of it.

Not generally known is that, when the stripes had served their purpose, consideration was given to allowing them to fade out naturally, since their removal, from fabric and wood, was likely to damage the underlying surfaces, which doesn't sound like a temporary, easily-removable material.

Not temporary paint as we would use the term today, as in purpose made temporary paint, just paint that would wear off after time or would come off more easily. If you look at old pictures the invasion stripes have often either worn off or have been removed, after D Day the stripes were reduced before being removed fully.

[old thumper]

The Mustang is better with the panel lines filled on the front portion of the wing, and this was indeed the factory treatment, but lots have subsequently flown with natural metal unfilled wings and they don't fall out of the sky. However we are getting a long way from invasion stripes.

Nobody was saying they would fall out of the sky. The topic was invasion stripes and my point was that perhaps high performance aircraft such as the P51 in particular may have had invasion stripes applied differently to for example a Short Sterling.

PR Spitfires were another case in which a lot of effort was given to smoothness.

[Iain Wyllie]

.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Iain Wyllie

[Paramedic]

Nobody was saying they would fall out of the sky. The topic was invasion stripes and my point was that perhaps high performance aircraft such as the P51 in particular may have had invasion stripes applied differently to for example a Short Sterling.

PR Spitfires were another case in which a lot of effort was given to smoothness.

There are some good threads here if you make a search, I believe, and elsewhere on the www about the fillings in the P-51 wings. Basically that was the case form the start but it was later found out that it was not as important/did that much and was not relaced after for example repainting (which might have removed the filler). "Old Crow" for example, was NOT refilled after Olvie Drab --> NMF.. There is a lot that could be said here but do a search ad see what you can fins.

I also think there is a good little note in that book on how to build Tamiya´s big P-51..

For invasions stripes I suggest you look at the individual you are about to do.. As has already been said, some where hastily appied with a brush while others were not but instead neatly painted..

[old thumper]

There are some good threads here if you make a search, I believe, and elsewhere on the www about the fillings in the P-51 wings. Basically that was the case form the start but it was later found out that it was not as important/did that much and was not relaced after for example repainting (which might have removed the filler). "Old Crow" for example, was NOT refilled after Olvie Drab --> NMF.. There is a lot that could be said here but do a search ad see what you can fins.

I also think there is a good little note in that book on how to build Tamiya´s big P-51..

For invasions stripes I suggest you look at the individual you are about to do.. As has already been said, some where hastily appied with a brush while others were not but instead neatly painted..

I'm not really interested in the exact details of the filling of Mustang wings, my only point was that perhaps different guidelines were issued for what paint should be used on different types of aircraft for performance reasons.

There is a invasion stripes thread on Britmodeller with a number of good pictures of invasion stripes being painted on.

[Work In Progress]

There is no evidence of any such differentiated instructions being issued on aircraft performance grounds.

[Stonar]

There is no evidence of any such differentiated instructions being issued on aircraft performance grounds.

No there isn't. There is however plenty of evidence of the rush to get the markings applied to aircraft already in service. The instruction to apply the markings was issued shortly before D-Day. Most units seem to have had 24-36 hours to paint their aircraft.

Worrying about the effect of the markings on performance is slightly missing the point. The markings were applied as recognition or IFF markings and were intended to identify all allied aircraft operating in daylight to the thousands of 'friendly' guns which they would over fly. It's really just a matter of priorities.

During 'Husky' mentioned above well over a thousand men died as a result of friendly fire incidents. The worst two incidents involved airborne troops. First the aircraft towing British glider aircraft were shot at, releasing the gliders which crashed into the sea with between 252 and 326 dead, depending what you read.

Later transports carrying the US 504th PIR were shot at, many of them were shot down and more than 300 US soldiers were killed or wounded.

These incidents would have led to the adoption of the distinctive markings for D-Day

Cheers

Steve

Edited December 7, 2014 by Stonar

[bobmig]

I suppose the quality of the stripes really depended upon how much time and manpower was available. The caption for this photo reads:

"A scene recorded on June 5th, 1944 in Tangmere, Sussex. Preparing Spitfires for D-Day, 411 Squadron RCAF ground crew members apply invasion stripes to Spitfire Mk. IXe, DB-R. This aircraft was reportedly flown by F/L Jack J. Boyle."

[Graham Boak]

That's a familiar picture - but what did it look like after the end of the painting?

[Stonar]

Hopefully better than these

Cheers

Steve

[Black Knight]

That's a familiar picture - but what did it look like after the end of the painting?

Just my thoughts. Plus I think its a posed photo. Those bods wouldn't be painting in blues, they'd have overalls on.

[Stonar]

These are nice, from our American friends, as long as you don't read the order too closely

Cheers

Steve

[bobmig]

Just my thoughts. Plus I think its a posed photo. Those bods wouldn't be painting in blues, they'd have overalls on.

Yes, it may well be a posed photo. Just for fun I blew the shot up and tweaked it in Photoshop to get a better look. Overalls or not, the uniforms look rather shabby. Both painters have their trouser legs turned up, and (while hard to see it here) both have a fair bit of paint spatter on their boots. Sorry to send the thread off on a tangent... I just thought it was interesting.

[Tbolt]

These are nice, from our American friends, as long as you don't read the order too closely

Cheers

Steve

Nice expect the angle of the stripes on the left wing are way off.