B-17G 'Chow-Hound' 42-31367 nose art colours

[TheKinksFan]

Kits-World (KW172241) has the bomb that Pluto is resting on in olive drab, but other decals (Superscale & Monogram) depict it as red or red yellow. Thinking logically it should of course be olive drab, not brightly coloured. But maybe there's a reason that it's depicted in red, if the nose art was inspired by a Disney cartoon, and the bomb was bright in that cartoon. Does someone have any info on this matter?

 

Edit.

I must be quite thick, of course the aircraft is in olive drab, so that's an explanation why it could be bright, as otherwise it doesn't stand out.

Edited October 1, 2023 by TheKinksFan

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

14 hours ago, TheKinksFan said:

Edit.

I must be quite thick, of course the aircraft is in olive drab, so that's an explanation why it could be bright, as otherwise it doesn't stand out.

Me thinks you’ve figured it out. Im thinking this as well. 

[TheKinksFan]

9 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Me thinks you’ve figured it out. Im thinking this as well. 

I think I will still get the Kits-World sheet, hoping that the nose art will stand out from the background olive drab that I'll use. This aircraft has interesting, but tragic story, all crew members KIA.

[tomprobert]

It may be of interest that it is highly unlikely that Chow Hound was ever adorned with the insignia red tail, stabilisers and wing tips which the 91st BG wore in the last year of the war. The memo came through from 1st AD HQ in late July '44 to paint the centre of the fin, stabilisers and wing tips insignia red, and with Chow Hound lost on August 8th chances are it wasn't painted as such. I know we are all used to seeing the Monogram classic scheme with the red, but my research (for what it's worth) points to this as being unlikely.

 

All the best,

Tom

 

EDIT: I've just checked the KitsWorld sheet and it is correct for Chow Hound for March '44 - no red! 

Edited October 2, 2023 by tomprobert

[TheKinksFan]

3 minutes ago, tomprobert said:

It may be of interest that it is highly unlikely that Chow Hound was ever adorned with the insignia red tail, stabilisers and wing tips which the 91st BG wore in the last year of the war. The memo came through from 1st AD HQ in late July '44 to paint the centre of the fin, stabilisers and wing tips insignia red, and with Chow Hound lost on August 8th chances are it wasn't painted as such. I know we are all used to seeing the Monogram classic scheme with the red, but my research (for what it's worth) points to this as being unlikely.

Thanks for the information, I was wondering that, as I've seen different versions, some without insignia red. How do interpret the different shades in the tail, is it just newer olive drab paint? https://b17flyingfortress.de/en/b17/42-31367-chow-hound/42-31367-photo/

[tomprobert]

25 minutes ago, TheKinksFan said:

Thanks for the information, I was wondering that, as I've seen different versions, some without insignia red. How do interpret the different shades in the tail, is it just newer olive drab paint? https://b17flyingfortress.de/en/b17/42-31367-chow-hound/42-31367-photo/

 

The centre section of the tails were medium green - they were built and painted separately by sub-contractors. There is a better, lighter version of this picture out there that shows no red on the wing tips or stabilisers.

 

I'm not saying this is perfect by any means, but I did an pre-August '44 B-17 recently to give you an idea of the colours used:

 

 

Best regards,

Tom

Edited October 2, 2023 by tomprobert

[72modeler]

A very interesting question! In my opinion the bomb on the nose art is not olive drab, which leaves red and yellow as the next most logical choices, made all the more difficult by trying to figure out what film/filters were used by the photographer. My guess would be for red, as in the period photos, the color of the bomb does not seen to match the yellow of the prop tips, and in  all the color profiles and illustrations I have seen, the bomb is finished in red, but you already know the caveat of using color profiles and/or restored aircraft to document colors and markings. Like the others, I believe the center section of the fin was painted medium green 42, as was very commonly done by subcontractors. and I haven't  seen any  period photos of Chow Hound that show the horizontal stabilizers clearly enough to determine if CH carried the red tail markings. Hope the links and photos are not the same ones that you have seen already; I used to have a website that had photos of just about every B-17 and B-24 that had nose art, but I can't seem to find it at the moment! If I  come up with anything more definitive, I will post it here. Best I can do- sorry! I do love the OD/grey B-17G's a lot more than the bare metal examples.

Mike

 

from the American Air Museum in Britain website:

https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/media/media-26069jpeg

 

from the WW2aircraft website:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/b-17g-chow-hound.16930/

 

an interesting article about the wreck and its crew:

https://www.nj.com/mercer/2015/08/air_force_dedicates_memorial_to_bomber_chow-hound.html

 

from Pinterest:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5b/43/20/5b4320d217306e508494dfb58717adee.jpg

[TheKinksFan]

6 hours ago, tomprobert said:

I'm not saying this is perfect by any means, but I did an pre-August '44 B-17 recently to give you an idea of the colours used:

I like it a lot, and the medium green tail section adds some variety. I see that you painted the aileron, elevators and rudder with a lighter olive drab. Is it to highlight that they are replaced or fabric painted with different kind of paint?

I should have first made sure that I have the right kit. I've got a Revell 1/72 B-17G (2011) and Airfix B-17G (2016), and I bought another Airfix one today, the latest with 'Milk Wagon' and '$5 with Breakfast'. If I'm not mistaken Revell does have the right parts for Chow-Hound, the Boeing tail turret, and #54 seems to be the right waist gun window. I already have one Kits-World sheet KW1722014 with several nose art option.https://www.kitsworld.co.uk/index.php?GOTO=105&PICFILE=105&STKNR=105&STRH=&ORDN=&RNZ=649264&THISVIEWMODE=2&SUPPLIER=&FINDRETR=&WIDENET=&CATEGORY=5&SUB=1&VWW=1&VANCE=99

Only afterwards I realized that you need several other sheets, so  it would become rather expensive. But I like that 'Man O War II' scheme, so I haven't decided what to do. There are good photos of the front, but I'm not certain what kind the waist gunner positions were. https://b17flyingfortress.de/en/b17/42-38083-man-o-war-ii-horsepower-ltd/

[TheKinksFan]

3 hours ago, 72modeler said:

A very interesting question! In my opinion the bomb on the nose art is not olive drab, which leaves red and yellow as the next most logical choices, made all the more difficult by trying to figure out what film/filters were used by the photographer. My guess would be for red, as in the period photos, the color of the bomb does not seen to match the yellow of the prop tips, and in  all the color profiles and illustrations I have seen, the bomb is finished in red, but you already know the caveat of using color profiles and/or restored aircraft to document colors and markings

I found this: https://www.uswarspatches.com/ww2-us-91st-bomb-group-patches/

They are original patches made for the crew members. Pluto is lying on a blue bomb, so could it be the nose art bomb is also mostly blue.

What ever color it was, unfortunately the kits-world decal remains olive drab. There's one superscale sheet on ebay, but the shipping is $20. Maybe I should ask if a cheaper shipping option would be possible. 

[tomprobert]

2 hours ago, TheKinksFan said:

I like it a lot, and the medium green tail section adds some variety. I see that you painted the aileron, elevators and rudder with a lighter olive drab. Is it to highlight that they are replaced or fabric painted with different kind of paint?

I should have first made sure that I have the right kit. I've got a Revell 1/72 B-17G (2011) and Airfix B-17G (2016), and I bought another Airfix one today, the latest with 'Milk Wagon' and '$5 with Breakfast'. If I'm not mistaken Revell does have the right parts for Chow-Hound, the Boeing tail turret, and #54 seems to be the right waist gun window. I already have one Kits-World sheet KW1722014 with several nose art option.https://www.kitsworld.co.uk/index.php?GOTO=105&PICFILE=105&STKNR=105&STRH=&ORDN=&RNZ=649264&THISVIEWMODE=2&SUPPLIER=&FINDRETR=&WIDENET=&CATEGORY=5&SUB=1&VWW=1&VANCE=99

Only afterwards I realized that you need several other sheets, so  it would become rather expensive. But I like that 'Man O War II' scheme, so I haven't decided what to do. There are good photos of the front, but I'm not certain what kind the waist gunner positions were. https://b17flyingfortress.de/en/b17/42-38083-man-o-war-ii-horsepower-ltd/

The Revell kit would be right for Chow Hound - as you correctly state it had the original ‘stinger’ tail and early 3 pane waist windows. 
 

The Airfix kit, although better than the Revell in many respects, is a much later batch with the staggered waist guns and Cheyenne tail gun. 
 

Man O War, similarly, is an early batch which the Revell kit would be correct and the 3 pane waist panels would be needed. 
 

I painted the stabs and ailerons on mine in faded OD as being fabric, they faded much quicker than the metal parts around them. 
 

I hope that helps. 
Tom

[TheKinksFan]

2 hours ago, tomprobert said:

The Revell kit would be right for Chow Hound - as you correctly state it had the original ‘stinger’ tail and early 3 pane waist windows. 
 

The Airfix kit, although better than the Revell in many respects, is a much later batch with the staggered waist guns and Cheyenne tail gun. 
 

Man O War, similarly, is an early batch which the Revell kit would be correct and the 3 pane waist panels would be needed. 
 

I painted the stabs and ailerons on mine in faded OD as being fabric, they faded much quicker than the metal parts around them.

Thanks Tom for confirming their configurations. It's a pity that Airfix have not released earlier versions. Some manufacturers would already in the beginning designed and planned all the versions they will release later. Airfix doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason if they release other versions or not. And they make a big deal of re-issuing an old kit on social media. I'm quite fond of these new Airfix kits, so it's a shame they are such a small company. 

[72modeler]

7 hours ago, TheKinksFan said:

I found this: https://www.uswarspatches.com/ww2-us-91st-bomb-group-patches/

They are original patches made for the crew members. Pluto is lying on a blue bomb, so could it be the nose art bomb is also mostly blue.

What ever color it was, unfortunately the kits-world decal remains olive drab. There's one superscale sheet on ebay, but the shipping is $20. Maybe I should ask if a cheaper shipping option would be possible. 

Whatever color you find documentation for as being  the correct one on Chow Hound's nose art, it should be pretty easy to paint the bomb on the decal sheet with the correct color. I thought I was the only one who goes bonkers for an aircraft that there are no decals for! If you are planning to use the new-tool Revell kit, and you are a stickler for accuracy, you might want to read some build articles and kit reviews, as I recall reading comments that the nose contours forward of the cockpit were too pinched, and the wings  horribly fat in cross section, and I think one of the bomb bay bulkheads was not angled correctly.   There are a couple of real B-17 authorities here on BM that could be more helpful in that regard, as it's been a long time since I had my Academy, Hasegawa, Revell, and Airfix B-17 kits out to make comparisons. I also recall our having some topic discussions on the new-tool Revell B-17 kits, so you might do a search for them, if you are interested.

Mike

[TheKinksFan]

6 hours ago, 72modeler said:

Whatever color you find documentation for as being  the correct one on Chow Hound's nose art, it should be pretty easy to paint the bomb on the decal sheet with the correct color. I thought I was the only one who goes bonkers for an aircraft that there are no decals for! If you are planning to use the new-tool Revell kit, and you are a stickler for accuracy, you might want to read some build articles and kit reviews, as I recall reading comments that the nose contours forward of the cockpit were too pinched, and the wings  horribly fat in cross section, and I think one of the bomb bay bulkheads was not angled correctly.   There are a couple of real B-17 authorities here on BM that could be more helpful in that regard, as it's been a long time since I had my Academy, Hasegawa, Revell, and Airfix B-17 kits out to make comparisons. I also recall our having some topic discussions on the new-tool Revell B-17 kits, so you might do a search for them, if you are interested.

My hands are not as steady as I wished they were, but even a greater problem with brush painting is that you would have to first paint the bomb white, and then red and yellow, if I chose to copy the Superscale colours. White, yellow and red are absolute PITA to hand brush, as the coverage is poor, especially if the base is dark. Painting it blue would be much easier.

I confess that one of the biggest factors that makes me choose a certain scheme, is the nose art. That's why USAAF aircraft are so fascinating, the nose art makes the aircraft unique and easily recognizable. Looking at photos, the nose art was so prevalent in USAAF, but sadly very few are available as decals. 

 

When it comes to three dimensional shape issues and inaccuracies, fortunately I'm very bad at seeing them in my own eyes, although I've read about them. So I'm not that bothered about them most of the time. 

[Phoenix44]

12 hours ago, tomprobert said:

The Revell kit would be right for Chow Hound - as you correctly state it had the original ‘stinger’ tail and early 3 pane waist windows. 
 

The Airfix kit, although better than the Revell in many respects, is a much later batch with the staggered waist guns and Cheyenne tail gun. 
 

Man O War, similarly, is an early batch which the Revell kit would be correct and the 3 pane waist panels would be needed. 
 

I painted the stabs and ailerons on mine in faded OD as being fabric, they faded much quicker than the metal parts around them. 
 

I hope that helps. 
Tom

Why do you say they faded much quicker? I assume it was the same paint, over doped surfaces? And this is England! I'm not sure that if we look at areas that are fabric covered but not movable (so cannot be at a slightly different angle) on say Hurricanes that we see much, if any difference between fabric and metal in terms of fading? 

[Graham Boak]

In this period the paint used over fabric surfaces was cellulose based, as was the dope, whereas the paint used on metal surfaces was synthetic.

 

Yes, this fading happened in England too.  We do have all kinds of weather, and age at the same rate as elsewhere.

 

If you look in various postings on the Hurricane, you will find Troy's posting of a lovely colour picture of an early Hurricane in France, with very clearly different shades on the fabric and metal parts.  So yes, they do.

 

It may be possible to argue that the synthetic and cellulose paints had different hues when new, and this is more than likely in the case of US OD, which was totally uncontrolled and available in very varied appearances - see photos of early C-47s and camouflaged B-17s with significantly darker fins (same Douglas factory as the C-47 fins?)  I'm  not so sure that this reason would cover Hurricanes, as photos of new Hurricanes don't show this effect.  (That I've noticed.)

[tomprobert]

1 hour ago, Phoenix44 said:

Why do you say they faded much quicker? I assume it was the same paint, over doped surfaces? And this is England! I'm not sure that if we look at areas that are fabric covered but not movable (so cannot be at a slightly different angle) on say Hurricanes that we see much, if any difference between fabric and metal in terms of fading? 

I don't know the science behind it but I think @Graham Boak has covered the main reason well. When looking at period photographs of OD-pained B-17s and B-24s (plus the many other types in use) you can clearly see the difference in hues. 

[72modeler]

8 hours ago, tomprobert said:

I don't know the science behind it but I think @Graham Boak has covered the main reason well. When looking at period photographs of OD-pained B-17s and B-24s (plus the many other types in use) you can clearly see the difference in hues. 

True! I would imagine the different  properties of dope and enamel would come into play, but as has been stated, but most likely @Graham Boak has posted something on the subject; if you look at period photos of OD/grey B-17's, you can clearly see the faded fabric control surfaces, with the trim tabs in a darker color, as they were metal and painted with enamel.

Mike

[Phoenix44]

23 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

In this period the paint used over fabric surfaces was cellulose based, as was the dope, whereas the paint used on metal surfaces was synthetic.

 

Yes, this fading happened in England too.  We do have all kinds of weather, and age at the same rate as elsewhere.

 

If you look in various postings on the Hurricane, you will find Troy's posting of a lovely colour picture of an early Hurricane in France, with very clearly different shades on the fabric and metal parts.  So yes, they do.

 

It may be possible to argue that the synthetic and cellulose paints had different hues when new, and this is more than likely in the case of US OD, which was totally uncontrolled and available in very varied appearances - see photos of early C-47s and camouflaged B-17s with significantly darker fins (same Douglas factory as the C-47 fins?)  I'm  not so sure that this reason would cover Hurricanes, as photos of new Hurricanes don't show this effect.  (That I've noticed.)

I'm not sure that cellulose paint fades at a noticeably faster rate, certainly within the relatively short lifetimes of operational aircraft? It was used on things like cars because it is hard-wearing and durable. 

 

Most fading of paint is due to UV, which we do not get in the UK at the same rates as elsewhere so paints do not age at the same rates here.  Of course at altitude there's a lot more UV than sitting on an airfield in Lincolnshire in November but theres still a great deal more UV exposure on a coral atoll in the Tropics. It would be interesting to see if B-17s had "faded" ailerons on their lower surfaces and to compare the "fading" of horizontal tail surfaces with rudders, given the significant differential in UV exposure.  Similarly its would be interesting to compare "fading" of wing and fuselage on early Hurricanes. If it is true fading, then wings should be more faded than the fuselage. 

[Snafu35]

Good evening,

 

To illustrate the subject of discolouration of the canvas-covered moving parts on painted B17s, I'd like to present three screenshots taken from William Wyler's 1943 film named Memphis Belle: 

( This photo is very interesting because you can see a different olive green painted on the outer parts of the wings.)

 

 

 

Regards,

Eric-Snafu35