How good was the paint finish on an RAF bomber?

[Harry_the_Spider]

If the Lancaster had a life expectancy of 90 hours did the paint finish reflect this?

 

The only survivors today look immaculate because they are priceless, but did the mass produced units from 1943 that were expected to be holes in the ground after a dozen missions look a bit "rough"?

[Truro Model Builder]

I would have thought it unlikely. The aircraft were still being completed to an expected standard, and that would have included its appearance.

 

I might be wrong, however.

[Black Knight]

You are falling into the trap of hindsight. 

The people building the aircraft built them to last

Boeing did have a problem with this in 1944 and sorted it out.

[Harry_the_Spider]

The people on the production line must have known that the aircraft losses were massive. I'm not implying that the mechanical build quality was "off", just that the paint may have been done a bit quickly. or perhaps once you've sprayed your 9,000th identical wing you can do it on auto-pilot and still make it look good.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

It would have been applied quickly but fairly consistently in a highly repetitive process.

[alt-92]

34 minutes ago, Harry_the_Spider said:

The people on the production line must have known that the aircraft losses were massive. I'm not implying that the mechanical build quality was "off", just that the paint may have been done a bit quickly.

Conversely, doing a botched job of it might mean an aircraft is detected earlier (*bling*) and therefore lost to enemy action.

Not something you'd want on your conscience - apart from the 'doing our bit and doing it properly' spirit  

 

[Black Knight]

There were government inspectors at every factory. If it didn't pass his quality control it was re-done until it was up to specs and no less.

[Harry_the_Spider]

That would make sense.

[Wez]

RAF standard was 1" overspray, the RAF at the coal face accepted 1/2" but really wanted 1/4", I dare say any Air Ministry inspectors would have used the same philosophy.

[Black Knight]

Not forgetting every factory had numerous test pilots. If any aeroplane did not meet with their approval they could ground it until it was satisfactory. A bad paint job would worry the test pilot that the rest of the aeroplane was not good.

[stever219]

I’ve read today of a B-24 that was lost on its first test flight as only four of 102 bolts holding the left outboard wing panel had actually been installed.  The aircraft had been signed off as having had the work done.  Two Consolidate employees who’d signed off the work were sacked and the value of the lost bomber (quoted as $155,000) was docked from the contract payments  and Consolidated wound up paying almost as much again ($132,000) to the families of the crew.

 

In terms of paint finish the Air Ministry wanted adequate protection against corrosion and conformity with specifications for effectiveness of camouflage.  No one in the factories knew if the aeroplane they were painting would last for one combat sortie or 120, or whether it would spend its life flogging round the circuit  and stooging around on cross-country navexes with a training unit; the aeroplanes all to be painted to a standard (quality) which would obviate the requirement for the operators to retouch the finish frequently and often.

 

Some paint finishes, notably RDM2A Special Night, were not up to the mark.  This paint required perfect surface preparation with no contaminants whatsoever.  Even with perfect preparation it’s adhesion was poor and any contaminant (fuel, oil, exhaust stains for example) affected this.  It scratched easily and could come off in sheets.  Thankfully most paints in use at the time we’re better than this.

Edited April 13, 2020 by stever219
Ooops!

[MilneBay]

Well back to the original question. Aircraft were built from a myriad of small components each of which went into the assembly of a larger component that in itself was part of an even more complex item. At each stage in that process from the creation of the basic materials e.g. aluminium alloys, bakelite, perspex, leather, harnessing for belts etc. to the machining, cutting and drilling of a frame part in an aileron or panel or seat, engine etc., the part and the ensuing assemblage of parts would be finished to a standard required for it's next step up the assembly process. And many of those parts e.g. instruments, guns, electrical components were sourced from outside vendors who also were following these basic production processes.

 

Therefore each of those would then be inspected etc. as part of an ongoing process. Part of that process was painting - all parts would be painted at the outset as part of the process of protecting metal from corrosion. Then many larger assemblies would be prepainted in their external camouflage finish so that they would arrive on the assembly line at their designated time ready to be incorporated into yet another larger assembly or in the case of wings, moving control surfaces etc. so that they were incorporated into the basic airframe without minimum refitting. At the same time all the add on parts like electrical systems, cabling for controls, ammunition feed for guns, control panels and their myriad of circuits and instruments were all following the same manufacture and inspection processes. In effect everything from the raw material from which any item was made, through to a rivet, through to the final assembly was manufactured, inspected for defects and part of that process was the painting. And as the assemblies that were to make up the final product became more complex every effort was made to ensure that these would be a seamless "plug in" fit in the assembly process.

 

So all the procedures governing the process were complex and part of that was constant inspection for defects. The final assembly of the complete aircraft reflected that basic process. And if that process required repetitive boring tasks (which most of it was) then the inspection process took that into account by removing the defective parts when inspected. Also as production lines developed these were monitored to find ways of cutting out waste either of vital material, or work, so those also were evolving. So would an aircraft leave the assembly line with a less than perfect paint scheme, well yes as perfection is generally unobtainable, however it would leave the assembly line with a paint finish that reflected the basic requirements of the inspection process at the time of production - and that would in itself would reflect what the AM felt was the achievable standard given the circumstances of war. Did standards fall, no, but the standards that applied reflected what was required as production and service requirements matured in the face of reality.

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, Harry_the_Spider said:

If the Lancaster had a life expectancy of 90 hours did the paint finish reflect this?

 

The only survivors today look immaculate because they are priceless, but did the mass produced units from 1943 that were expected to be holes in the ground after a dozen missions look a bit "rough"?

look at period photos.  In short, no.  

 

In general, as a someone who is very image orientated,  British paint held up very well.  There are exceptions, some Hurricanes in 1940 shed big chunks of paint, but only once in service, and only in the metal bits,  and this if of note as it is unusual.

 

Aircraft are not tanks, they are massively complex bits of machinery requiring many trades to maintain and service them, and the don't work properly if rough and dirty.  They cleaned and touched up as needed.  An airframe that lasted will get overhauled, and after a time, a major overhaul, and this includes the paint.

A photo of a plane after flying 6-8 hours, and burning 2000 gallons of leaded fuel and a lot of oil, will of course look pretty filthy over the wings and round engines.

eg 

Lancaster. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

there is a collection of period colour here,  including production line and some pretty weathered airframes.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=8270787@N07&q=lancaster

 

some examples

 

production line

Lancaster  construction, 1943. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

100 operations party

Lancaster party, 1944. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

There will of course be exceptions.

 

as there are a good amount of photos, here are the Spitfires

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=spitfire&user_id=8270787%40N07&view_all=1

 

note how good the paint finish is in general.

 

HTH