Jump to content

Recommended Posts

hi, :D

 

Austrian Camouflage you say... (there was a time that Austrians camouflaged as Germans to commit atrocities and let them be called "first victims" afterwards.... :( )

 

an Austrian 747..... the closest you could get historically was the JU 52s operated briefly before being overtaken by the Luftwaffe

https://www.arsenalm.de/JU-52-3m+Oesterreichische+Luftwaffe+1938.htm

also the Ro.37 and the Ju 86 wore similar camo

https://www.popscreen.com/prod/MTI2MTc3NzM0/72-KORA-JUNKERS-Ju86-AUSTRIA-Conversion-Kit-MINT-eBay

https://www.valuebrick.at/plastikmodellbau/flugzeugmodellbau/special-hobby-sh48183-imam-romeo-ro-37-1-48.html

 

maybe more a what-if Austria-Hungarian emporium airforce.... but then the current Austrian Eagle on the fin is miss-leading ;)

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the artist based this on the 1980's Europe 1 "light" scheme as used on MAC transport types like the C-5. C-141 and C-130.

The scheme in theory featured greens FS 34092 and 34102 and grey FS 36118. However pictures often showed a lighter grey and a darker dark green, giving an effect very similar to what I see in that drawing. See for example this older thread where such differences from the official scheme are discussed

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@exdraken I take it you don't recognize the pattern? I'm not actually after an Austrian 747, although a NATO camo scheme 747 sounds interesting.

@Giorgio N thanks for the information.

My only question now is this a puzzle pattern or flektarn? Please forgive a civvie if I have got the names wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess that for puzzle pattern you mean a jigsaw pattern... in any case this is neither a jigsaw not a flecktarn pattern, that are both type of patterns generally applicable to camo clothing.

In aircraft camouflage such terms are not used, this would simply be considered a 3-colour wraparound (meaning that the camo scheme "wraps" on the undersurfaces) pattern, with rounded edges bands. Best way to see the kind of pattern would be to look for a pdf copy of a document named T.O. 1-1-4, better if from the '80s. This document features the camouflage schemes with 4 view drawings for all USAF types in service at the time. Various versions of this document can be easily found online, older ones will not include this scheme though, reason why it's better to find an '80s one

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

Best way to see the kind of pattern would be to look for a pdf copy of a document named T.O. 1-1-4

I am on the case. Thank you for your super information, you've been really helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abandoned Project said:

@exdraken I take it you don't recognize the pattern? I'm not actually after an Austrian 747, although a NATO camo scheme 747 sounds interesting.

sorry then, but your thread title is "Austrian camouflage" thought you would be interested in the "Austrian" part...  and no, not more info from my side then ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only named the topic "Austrian camouflage" as the fictional 747 is for the Austrian air force. Sorry for causing confusion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2021 at 1:44 AM, Giorgio N said:

This document features the camouflage schemes with 4 view drawings for all USAF types in service at the time.

Actually Giorgio, it didn't.  F-16s and KC-10s easily jump to mind as aircraft that were NEVER in the camouflage portion of 1-1-4.  The only thing they ever had on the F-16 was "Distinctive Unit and Serial Number Sizes".  The KC-10 is nowhere to be found. Sometime in the late 90s they got rid of 1-1-4 altogether.  The painting and marking information is now in a specific T.O. for each aircraft type.  Not positive, but I think it is in the -23.  If I have the number right, then painting information for the F-16 would be in the 1F-16A-23, unless they have new sets of T.O.s for the later models, possibly a 1F-16C-XX series of T.O.s.

Later,

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@e8n2 considering that I am a casual observer civvie and that this is a What-if, what @Giorgio N said helped immensely. The information contained in T.O. 1-1-4 (found a copy of it from 1978) is generic enough for making sure things look right on an aircraft that would have initially entered service in 1972 or thereabouts.

Also were the KC-10 and F-16 in service in the 80's? As I said at the beginning, casual observer learning some great information from the BM massive, including your input Sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both entered active service in the late 70s and are still flying today although the KC-10 is supposed to be on the way out.  Just to let you know, with T.O.s you have the basic edition, and then the changes.  Your copy that you mentioned is the basic from 1978 which had many changes, over 20, until it was replaced by the new basic in May 1994.  That basic had at least 7 changes until it was rescinded in the late 90s.  During the mid to late 80s changes were brought in that deleted the South East Asia (Vietnam schemes) and replaced them with the Euro 1 schemes.  During one of the changes in the late 80s, the leading edge on A-10s went from being several colors to just one, the gray color.  But still no schemes for F-16s or KC-10s, and the change to the overall gray scheme on Military Airlift Command/Air Mobility Command aircraft never made it into 1-1-4 before it was rescinded.

Later,

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@e8n2 you are correct on an interesting point. I have the TO1-1-4 from 1978/1985 update and considering the KC-10 entered service in 1980 and the F-16 in 1978 having been in development since 1974 they should both be in the copy I have but there not?! I am going to put it down to the joys of government bureaucracy.

Having said that, if there is nothing official for a camouflage pattern for the F-16 and KC-10 or the 747, then nothing is wrong 😉

Another enjoyable history lesson 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 6:33 AM, e8n2 said:

Actually Giorgio, it didn't.  F-16s and KC-10s easily jump to mind as aircraft that were NEVER in the camouflage portion of 1-1-4.  The only thing they ever had on the F-16 was "Distinctive Unit and Serial Number Sizes".  The KC-10 is nowhere to be found. Sometime in the late 90s they got rid of 1-1-4 altogether.  The painting and marking information is now in a specific T.O. for each aircraft type.  Not positive, but I think it is in the -23.  If I have the number right, then painting information for the F-16 would be in the 1F-16A-23, unless they have new sets of T.O.s for the later models, possibly a 1F-16C-XX series of T.O.s.

Later,

Dave

 

Of course, my bad, I generalised the matter...

The F-16 and the KC-10 were never included, and I'm pretty sure there were a few other types that for one reason or the other never had a scheme in any of the many document issues and revisions.

At the same time the same documents included schemes that were approved but never used and retained schemes that had been long replaced, so T.O.1-1-4 was never the most accurate when it came to the schemes of the aircraft currently in service at any given time. The drawings in the document are also more like a general  guide than else, they are reproduced in quite small size and when compared to pictures of real aircrat there are a lot of variations. And of course it was only introduced in the mid '60s and hasn't been used for a few years, so any scheme outside of such time span would not be included.

Still for modelling purposes it remains a very useful thing to have, more so as various revisions can be found for free online. For the kind of use that the OP intended it's perfect, as he can find there a couple of aircraft similar in size and mission to the one he has in mind and these can be a start to devise a plausible pattern. Even when building a model of a real aircraft, at least the document gives an indication of the scheme, that is particularly useful in wraparound schemes as the lower surfaces are rarely visible in pictures.

Even with all the limitations, it would be good to be able to use similar documents for other air forces too, it would make the life of a modeller much easier

Edited by Giorgio N
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

. For the kind of use that the OP intended it's perfect,

That is true :evil_laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Abandoned Project said:

@e8n2 you are correct on an interesting point. I have the TO1-1-4 from 1978/1985 update and considering the KC-10 entered service in 1980 and the F-16 in 1978 having been in development since 1974 they should both be in the copy I have but there not?! I am going to put it down to the joys of government bureaucracy.

Having said that, if there is nothing official for a camouflage pattern for the F-16 and KC-10 or the 747, then nothing is wrong 😉

Another enjoyable history lesson 🙂

For both the F-16 and KC-10 there was probably an aircraft specific T.O. that covered the paint schemes.  As to what they were exactly I have no idea.  In the mid 90s they changed the numbering system for the aircraft T.O.s to more closely match what the airlines had been using for their aircraft.  I can remember seeing a copy of 1C-141A-23 that had a drawing showing the panel layout for the C-141 and it may have also had the paint scheme in there as well.  It's been well over 20 years since I retired so I have probably lost some of the things I knew from back then due to lack of use.  Haven't had to work on a C-141 autopilot system for quite a while so have probably forgotten which specific set of T.O.s to use for that.  However you will never forget that the aircraft -4 T.O. is the IPB, Illustrated Parts Breakdown.  You need that to order parts!

Later,

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

Even with all the limitations, it would be good to be able to use similar documents for other air forces too, it would make the life of a modeller much easier

I agree whole heartedly!

Later,

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the best looking 747 ever. I've read that these will replace Austria's Eurofighters. They are capable of carrying 532 Sidewinder & AMRAAM missiles. This is complimented by 16 30mm canons in the wings. Can't wait for the Xtradecal sheet. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hobo said:

these will replace Austria's Eurofighters. They are capable of carrying 532 Sidewinder & AMRAAM missiles. This is complimented by 16 30mm canons in the wings

L O L! Fantastic idea! :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not such a strange idea... In addition to the cruise missile launcher concept mentioned in your other thread on the subject, there was at some point a proposal for an interceptor variant of the B-1, equipped with a powerful radar and armed with a large number of AIM-54 missiles. I remember seeing an artist impression of such concept but nothing more, guess that the idea was shelved pretty quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

guess that the idea was shelved pretty quickly.

Ideas like those, when implemented, often fail to account for the fact they're not operating in a vacuum ;) 
The opponent will react accordingly and devise a counter - the prospect of losing one airframe with 20+ AIM-54's (1.2 million per round apparently) makes it a bit less attractive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

Ideas like those, when implemented, often fail to account for the fact they're not operating in a vacuum ;) 
The opponent will react accordingly and devise a counter - the prospect of losing one airframe with 20+ AIM-54's (1.2 million per round apparently) makes it a bit less attractive.

 

Enemy action would have not been a big issue for such a concept: the idea was ventilated for use as US based interceptor, so something that would have to deal only with bombers since Soviet fighters would have not been able to escort them.

Think of the "interceptor" B-1 like a larger evolution of the US Navy Missileer concept, an aircraft with very good loiter time capable of patroling a wide area while carrying a large number of missiles capable of hitting enemy bombers at long distance. The Missileer itself was expected to not mix it with enemy fighters and was a stable but not very manouverable subsonic type (the winning design was pretty much an evolution of the F3D)

Of course there are many other reasons why the concept was a bad idea anyway, and the fact that very little information remains on this seem to indicate that it was no more than an idea, with no real development work done on it.

Said that, the concept is returning, although in a different direction, with the current USAF idea of the "arsenal plane", an aicraft capable of carrying a large number of missiles of various kind, expected to fly long missions and dropping weapons on different targets when needed. That in a sense is an evolution of what types like the B-52 and the B-1 itself have done over Afghanistan, with the interesting added factor that transport types are now also considered, with the payload dropped from the rear ramp.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

Enemy action would have not been a big issue for such a concept: the idea was ventilated for use as US based interceptor, so something that would have to deal only with bombers since Soviet fighters would have not been able to escort them.

Ok, so I'm not going to bother with bombers, and spam ICBMs at you :P  

Now what are you going to do with those mega-interceptors?

 

That is what I meant with not operating in a vacuum - you're expecting your opponent to play according to your rules, and that's generally a bad idea.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alt-92 said:

Ok, so I'm not going to bother with bombers, and spam ICBMs at you :P  

Now what are you going to do with those mega-interceptors?

 

That is what I meant with not operating in a vacuum - you're expecting your opponent to play according to your rules, and that's generally a bad idea.

 

 

 

Well, they were looking for an interceptor to replace the F-106, there isn't much in terms of forcing the opponents to play one way or the other, in the end the job of such an aircraft is to shoot down bombers. In the end the F.106 was replaced in the former ADC units by the same F-15 used by TAC, then these units were disbanded and a number of ANG squadrons received the F-16ADF, a type that was itself later withdrawn and replaced by standard F-15s and F-16s

 

2 hours ago, Abandoned Project said:

So my idea of a VC-25B with a refuelling boom for escort fighters isn't so crazy.

 

A 747 with a boom is not a crazy idea as Boeing offered this in the past and Iran bought a couple, of which I believe one is still in service (the other was lost in an accident).

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...