RAF PRU Pink?

[Rolls-Royce]

3 hours ago, Phoenix44 said:

Yet they managed to get high octane fuel, oxygen and things like glycol? When you set up an airfield, you bring all the stuff you will need, otherwise it won't be an airfield for long. Why wouldn't that include paint? Things like squadron codes, spinners and ID bands were painted at airfields, and often overpainted there. We know during the BoB undersides of whole squadrons were painted locally. Patches and repairs were painted and so on, so there was paint there. The only question is how much and how continously.

Paint would be somewhat down the list of immediate necessities, as the aircraft would have arrived already painted. OTOH, fuel, ammunition, lubricants, and glycol were all necessary to fly and keep flying. As spare parts were too, one would think that those would have been prioritized along with the other urgent needs, yet we've all seen pictures and read anecdotes about badly damaged aircraft being cannibalized to keep others flying (I was in a unit where we had to do some of that when budgets were tight back in the late 70s). I think paint would've been more one of those "we'll get it to you as soon as we can" items.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Rolls-Royce

[Welkin]

Doesn't layers of paint imply a weight penalty as well?

I think that the RSAF applied a mid-stone/dark earth paint scheme to their NMF Lightnings, but removed it again as it had a negative effect on the aircraft's top speed?

I am however prepared to accept that might be urban myth!

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

3 hours ago, Rolls-Royce said:

I think paint would've been more one of those "we'll get it to you as soon as we can" items.

 

I agree. In practise I believe touchups would have been done with whatever was available (and suitable) to get aircraft flying again, but repaints / big paint jobs would wait until the paint arrived. Painting is a lot of effort, and you wouldn't want to do it twice. D-Day stripes the sort of last-minute exception for security reasons.

[Giorgio N]

19 hours ago, Welkin said:

Doesn't layers of paint imply a weight penalty as well?

I think that the RSAF applied a mid-stone/dark earth paint scheme to their NMF Lightnings, but removed it again as it had a negative effect on the aircraft's top speed?

I am however prepared to accept that might be urban myth!

 

The effect of the weight of paint on performance is negligible because the actual weight added by the paint when this is fully dry is quite small. The USAAF did compare performance of painted and unpainted aircraft and they measured the weight saving on both fighters and bombers. On large types they found weight savings in the order of 70-80 Lbs... that may sound a lot but when compared to an empty weight of over 37,000 Lbs for a B-24 is not that much.

For an aircraft with the kind of excess thrust the Lightning had, I doubt that a few Lbs, of paint would have made a difference in top speed, variations in things like local air temperature would have had more effect than an extra 20-30 Lbs,

 

Where paint can have a more serious effect on performance is in the extra drag that a painted surface can cause... or should I say a "badly painted" surface, that is where paints that are not ideal for the job are used. At the same time a good layer of proper smooth paint over a properly filled surface can result in less drag compared to the same surface without filler and paint. Each case is different, depending on the construction methods used for each aircraft. I should add that it is not only the kind of paint that matters, the preparation and application are also important

The Lightning story may have its roots in this problem rather than in the added weight, although I can't remember straight off my head how relevant is the effect of surface induced drag in supersonic flight compared to all other effects. In most supersonic aircraft the maximum speed is often determined by temperature in the intakes or other areas anyway.

 

Where paint makes a big difference is in the time needed for its application, that was the main drive behind the USAAF decision to stop camouflaging their aircraft in WW2; unpainted aircraft left the production lines faster and at a time when producing more and more aircraft was crucial this was seen as a very useful thing.

 

21 hours ago, Rolls-Royce said:

Paint would be somewhat down the list of immediate necessities, as the aircraft would have arrived already painted. OTOH, fuel, ammunition, lubricants, and glycol were all necessary to fly and keep flying. As spare parts were too, one would think that those would have been prioritized along with the other urgent needs, yet we've all seen pictures and read anecdotes about badly damaged aircraft being cannibalized to keep others flying (I was in a unit where we had to do some of that when budgets were tight back in the late 70s). I think paint would've been more one of those "we'll get it to you as soon as we can" items.

 

But do we know that paint was down the list in WW2 RAF ? Or is this an assumption on our side ? Do we have documents stating problems in the supply of paint to units ?

To me it seems that the only known cases of such situations being documented were at times of changes in camouflage (for example Sky right before the BoB or the introduction of Ocean Grey), when production was likely not ramped up yet to cover all requests. Even in theatres farther away the supply of paint didn't seem to have been a huge problem, even in Malta under siege aircraft managed to get touched up and even had their camouflage modified, meaning that one way or the other paint was available.

All we have about the need to look for paint locally is anecdotal evidence, often coming from postwar accounts.

 

18 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

I agree. In practise I believe touchups would have been done with whatever was available (and suitable) to get aircraft flying again, but repaints / big paint jobs would wait until the paint arrived. Painting is a lot of effort, and you wouldn't want to do it twice. D-Day stripes the sort of last-minute exception for security reasons.

 

Speaking of D-Day stripes, the application may have been rushed for obvious reasons but the preparation was not and among the materials was paint. According to research from the late Edgar Brooks, over 85,000 gallon of black and white paint were made available for the stripes. In mid May there were concerns that the quantities needed were not available as orders to paint factories had only been issued a month and lead times were believed to be 4-5 weeks... still in the end it looks like all units got their paint. The Allied logistic system in the ETO in 1944 was impressive and D-Day was maybe the best demonstration of such system.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Giorgio N

[Rolls-Royce]

14 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

The effect of the weight of paint on performance is negligible because the actual weight added by the paint when this is fully dry is quite small. The USAAF did compare performance of painted and unpainted aircraft and they measured the weight saving on both fighters and bombers. On large types they found weight savings in the order of 70-80 Lbs... that may sound a lot but when compared to an empty weight of over 37,000 Lbs for a B-24 is not that much.

For an aircraft with the kind of excess thrust the Lightning had, I doubt that a few Lbs, of paint would have made a difference in top speed, variations in things like local air temperature would have had more effect than an extra 20-30 Lbs,

 

Where paint can have a more serious effect on performance is in the extra drag that a painted surface can cause... or should I say a "badly painted" surface, that is where paints that are not ideal for the job are used. At the same time a good layer of proper smooth paint over a properly filled surface can result in less drag compared to the same surface without filler and paint. Each case is different, depending on the construction methods used for each aircraft. I should add that it is not only the kind of paint that matters, the preparation and application are also important

The Lightning story may have its roots in this problem rather than in the added weight, although I can't remember straight off my head how relevant is the effect of surface induced drag in supersonic flight compared to all other effects. In most supersonic aircraft the maximum speed is often determined by temperature in the intakes or other areas anyway.

 

Where paint makes a big difference is in the time needed for its application, that was the main drive behind the USAAF decision to stop camouflaging their aircraft in WW2; unpainted aircraft left the production lines faster and at a time when producing more and more aircraft was crucial this was seen as a very useful thing.

 

 

But do we know that paint was down the list in WW2 RAF ? Or is this an assumption on our side ? Do we have documents stating problems in the supply of paint to units ?

To me it seems that the only known cases of such situations being documented were at times of changes in camouflage (for example Sky right before the BoB or the introduction of Ocean Grey), when production was likely not ramped up yet to cover all requests. Even in theatres farther away the supply of paint didn't seem to have been a huge problem, even in Malta under siege aircraft managed to get touched up and even had their camouflage modified, meaning that one way or the other paint was available.

All we have about the need to look for paint locally is anecdotal evidence, often coming from postwar accounts.

 

 

Speaking of D-Day stripes, the application may have been rushed for obvious reasons but the preparation was not and among the materials was paint. According to research from the late Edgar Brooks, over 85,000 gallon of black and white paint were made available for the stripes. In mid May there were concerns that the quantities needed were not available as orders to paint factories had only been issued a month and lead times were believed to be 4-5 weeks... still in the end it looks like all units got their paint. The Allied logistic system in the ETO in 1944 was impressive and D-Day was maybe the best demonstration of such system.

Aside from production quantities, Giorgio, one has to take into account transport. With the exception of those units based in the UK, nearly every ounce of food, ammunition, or oil for RAF squadrons arrived at distant destinations via ship. With relatively limited space and tonnage available for much of the war, logisticians had to "triage" what would be sent right away. I'm thinking more of rapidly deploying units here during their initial setup at a location. Within the category of paint, specific colors used for theater and tactical markings would probably have had priority for shipment, but camouflage paints aren't needed straightaway to establish an initial operational capability.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Rolls-Royce

[fishplanebeer]

Just noticed that Colourcoats do an RAF Anti-Flash White (BS4800/5252 00E55) ACRN37 which appears to be a very subtle shade of pink so would this be suitable in 72nd scale perhaps?

 

Regards

Colin.

[Giorgio N]

18 hours ago, Rolls-Royce said:

Aside from production quantities, Giorgio, one has to take into account transport. With the exception of those units based in the UK, nearly every ounce of food, ammunition, or oil for RAF squadrons arrived at distant destinations via ship. With relatively limited space and tonnage available for much of the war, logisticians had to "triage" what would be sent right away. I'm thinking more of rapidly deploying units here during their initial setup at a location. Within the category of paint, specific colors used for theater and tactical markings would probably have had priority for shipment, but camouflage paints aren't needed straightaway to establish an initial operational capability.

 

RAF units were based in very far locations only in a few situations, most of them were actually not that far from friendly territory that could sure not supply specific aircraft parts but could at least supply food and other items. The RAF in the Middle East could be resupplied via Egypt, in SEAC there was the whole Indian subcontinent that produced almost everything.

Of course spares and other materials had to come through the sea but again I wonder... do we actually know that whenever a load was prepared paint was given a lower priority ? Or is this just our assumption ?

MUs in both the MTO and SEAC never really seemed to suffer from lack of paint while at the same time we have knowledge of local actions to modify certain schemes (Malta request for a better camouflage for operations over the sea, SEAC repaint of aircraft in DFS in the previous TLS, aircraft in Italy receiving the DFS in place of the desert scheme).

I can understand the case of some rushed expeditionary force, although again it would be interesting to have al the details before making assumptions... in the end when Operation Corporate started, the whole Sea Harrier fleet had their camo scheme modified aboard the carriers during the trip South, so if the relevant commands believe that paint will be required, paint will be supplied.

 

 

7 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

Just noticed that Colourcoats do an RAF Anti-Flash White (BS4800/5252 00E55) ACRN37 which appears to be a very subtle shade of pink so would this be suitable in 72nd scale perhaps?

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Not seen this particular paint with my eyes as Colourcoats here are very hard to find, however the postwar Anti-Flash White should have nothing to do with the wartime shade. Guess that the only way to know if it could work on a model would be to try it...

[fishplanebeer]

I'll add the Anti-Flash White to my impending Colourcoats order and feed back on how it looks.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Chuck1945]

@Giorgio N, I vaguely recall reading in Geoff Thomas’ book about RAF Thunderbolts that they were repainted upon arrival in India with locally produced paints supporting your comment about finding sources without needing to rely upon a supply chain stretching back to the UK.

[Alex Gordon]

Locally sourced paint probably isn't as arbitrary as it sounds.As far as India goes there were certainly five major manufacturers established there before or early in the war;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Paints

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berger_Paints

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_Nerolac_Paints

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysore_Paints_and_Varnish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalimar_Paints

 

Some pink FR IX Spitfires were converted and painted by 83 GSU at Bognor,the relevant gen that I turned up can be found in this thread https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235073586-icm-spitfire-ix-in-148th-scalefinished/  where I built this

 

 

which is probably a bit too pink and the fin flash is too tall.