Paint preparation for USAAF P-47D's in ETO

[Grissom]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm building a 1/32 bubble-top P-47D and intend to finish it in the popular scheme of Frank Oiler's 'Eileen'.    I believe this particular airframe, like many in the 78 FG, was sent to Europe in a factory bare metal finish.   RAF paint was applied to the aircraft, presumably 'in the field'.    I've been studying period photographs to get an idea of the weathering I'll need to apply to my model.   It seems to me that these P-47D's didn't suffer as much paint chipping as might be expected.   My question is this: was a primer coat applied to the airframe prior to the RAF Dark Green and Sky paints?   If so, what colour primer is most likely to have been applied.  Thanks in advance.

 

Wayne

[RadMax8]

Hi Wayne,

 

Good thing you’ve been looking at photos! I think the idea of chipping has gotten a little overblown over the years. Based off what I’ve been seeing on the topic, the paint used was designed to stick to metal, and the quality of the paint was higher than we may think. Secondly, chipping occurs when something hits the paint and causes it to fracture and flake off. This is just a guess, but given that “Eileen” was based in the UK, odds are it was either a grass field or a concrete runway, not a whole lot of loose material. Now if you were looking to build a Corsair based on a crushed coral airfield in the South Pacific, there’s a little more loose material to blow around, and potentially cause wear. 
 

If you want to add some chipping or metal wear, think about areas that may get stepped on frequently, like the wing roots, or areas that have removable panels that could be subject to dropping or rubbing on the edges, such as engine cowls, gun bays, or other inspection hatches. 
 

Cheers, and good luck. “Eileen” has such a cool, unique nose art. 

[TAG]

Hey Wayne, I'd say it's a fair bet to say any Jugs with field-applied camo did not have a primer coat applied, being painted instead directly onto the natural metal finish. In the field, on an active combat duty base, things tend to follow KISS operating procedures. Also, these birds weren't expected to last long, rate of attrition and all that, hence no need to protect something from corrosion if its lifespan was weeks, maybe months at best. You're right, the 78th's P-47's didn't get excessively chipped, but there was plenty of wear and tear, as will be the case in any active-duty bird. Here's a few period pics of 78th FG T-bolts to illustrate how grubby they actually got. Notice the odd over-spray here and there, the filthy, stained and chipped wing roots, random touch-ups all over the airframe and, of particular note, the uneven edges around the stars-and-bars ⎯ there's plenty of character in these planes. Hope that helps, cheers!

 

[TAG]

Almost forgot, the undersides were positively filthy with leaks, exhaust and cordite stains, not to mention all the crud kicked up by the tires and overall generalized schmutz. Here's another 78th Jug with an angle you don't often see of P-47's.

 

Cheers!

 

Thomaz

 

 

[Grissom]

Thanks for your replies, guys, much appreciated.   My hunch is that primer probably was not applied to these P-47D's.   The funny thing is this: RAF paint was (obviously) applied to wartime Spitfires and it was applied over a primed surface.   Oddly enough, it's the wing roots of Spitfires that seem to chip a lot, revealing  the underlying bare metal.   

 

 

 

 

[whiskey]

Wing roots weather faster due to the crew members constantly walking on them to get in and out of the cockpit.

[Grissom]

Hi Whiskey,

 

My bad...  I didn't explain my query well enough.    I know that the chipping at the wing root is explained by it being a high foot-traffic area.  What I meant was, the Spitfire wing roots seem to chip more readily than the wing roots of P-47D's, which I find somewhat strange, given that P-47D's probably didn't have any primer on their wings (unlike Spitfires).

[Work In Progress]

If you're looking at Battle of Britain Spitfires then there is a big difference in the wear and tear inherent in the usage.

 

Spitfire: multiple short flights a day, scrambling as quickly as possible, and two people on the wing for every flight (ground crew standing on wing to helped strap in pilot quickly and connect oxygen and RT leads) . No time to take care getting in and out as seconds count.

 

P-47 based in the UK: no defensive use at all, never has to scramble, one long multi-hour flight every few days, no-one is in a rush and you have time to mind where you're putting your feet as every flight is pre-planned and timetabled. Seconds do not count.

 

So, for every 100 hours of time you put on the aeroplane the Spitfire probably had done 200 flights, 800 rushed pairs of boots clattering over the port wing root, allowing for both entry and egress, whereas the P-47 had done more like 25 flights, 100 much more careful and calm pairs of feet.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Work In Progress

[brewerjerry]

Hi

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that US groundcrew were more relaxed on regulations, and some wore basketball shoes or sneakers

 

   this may account for less wear on the US aircraft ? 

 

  i know when as a civi i worked on some RN boats we had to wear plimpsol  shoes 

  so much for H&S in those days 

 

    cheers

      jerry 

[Work In Progress]

2 hours ago, brewerjerry said:

Hi

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that US groundcrew were more relaxed on regulations, and some wore basketball shoes or sneakers

 

   this may account for less wear on the US aircraft ? 

 

  i know when as a civi i worked on some RN boats we had to wear plimpsol  shoes 

  so much for H&S in those days 

 

    cheers

      jerry 

I had thought about that but couldn't substantiate it. I am reasonably confident you're right.  I absolutely believe US crews would have had readier access to such things that RAF crews (and greater ability to afford them). 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Work In Progress