PDA

View Full Version : chrome



Chevy350
04-09-2009, 01:09 AM
i was just wondering, why did the US use metal chrome color on planes like the p51? why didnt they paint them a camo color, or any color really besides chrome. it just seems like that would reflect sunlight and make them REALLY easy to spot, compared to other planes.

TinyTim
04-09-2009, 01:21 AM
They didn't want to hide from the enemy. They wanted to terrify them.

KIMURA
04-09-2009, 01:26 AM
If you got near complete air superiory you don't have to apply any kind of camo on your planes. Other factors leaving the paint off were save of weight(gain of speed and payload).
BTW the Allies did not apply chrome color, its just the raw surface of Alu foil, sometime polished to reduce drag.

Waldo.Pepper
04-09-2009, 01:46 AM
I think that the following is an accurate Wehrmacht soldier's homily.

"When identifying aircraft rely on the following.
If it is painted in camouflage - it is British.
If it is unpainted - it is American.
If it is invisible, then it is one of ours! (I.E. Luftwaffe.)"

Go to Home Depot and pick up a gallon of paint. Heavy stuff init? It hurts performance, and every little bit counts.

DuxCorvan
04-09-2009, 03:05 AM
The USAAF used camo till late 1943. Only started leaving planes unpainted when air superiority made it less necessary compared to the advantages in performance and maintenance. Besides, it had a positive effect in moral (for the allied crews).

Kettenhunde
04-09-2009, 03:20 AM
The US produced crap for aicraft paint. It is a thick heavy latex enamel that requires multiple coats, difficult to work with, not very durable, and quickly degrades aircraft performance.

It is not even cheap.

The Europeans had better aircraft finishes so it was not as critical.

All the best,

Crumpp

STENKA_69.GIAP
04-09-2009, 04:39 AM
The USAAF realised that when you are flying at 7000+ metres you will have a big white con trail a mile long behind you which can be seen from many miles away. You can't camoflage that so why bother to camoflage the plane.

It takes half a ton of paint to camoflage a B17 so by not painting it they could carry an extra half ton of bombs/armour/ammo.

CarlingWood
04-11-2009, 09:54 PM
No, the truce was that it was at the end of the war, with the Allies having air superiority, and it was winter, and green doesnt blend with snow.

Thanks what the book Bud Anderson wrote said. He said 3 of his mechanics worked all night rubbing the paint off, rubbing off most of the skins on their hands in the process.

RPMcMurphy
04-12-2009, 03:20 AM
Hmm, funny thing about paint;
My a--hole brother built an RV-4 about ten years ago. He said that after he finally painted it that he picked-up about eight to ten nauts in speed at the same RPM there abouts as before he painted it. Said tha the paint covred all those rivets am sheeit and made it more streemlined. I believe it. This was about ten years ago. Coaurse, I wouldnt know for sure since I dont speak to him anynore. Hes an a--hole with an RV-4.

Kettenhunde
04-12-2009, 04:09 AM
Said tha the paint covred all those rivets am sheeit and made it more streemlined. I believe it.

That is pretty much it. That is really an added benefit of technology as the main reason to paint is corrosion resistance. The smoother finish results in less drag which is why a smooth, polished finish is in demand. Look at your unlimited class racers. Very few are polished bare aluminum.

Frankly that is an even tougher aircraft finish to maintain than painting! A bare aluminum airframe is very vulnerable to corrosion and represents a significant increase in the amount of required maintenance. The USAAF duralumin was more vulnerable to corrosion than the European alloys due to the higher cupric content.

Good paint is easy to achieve that smooth finish in a thin coat. The paint is durable and offers good adhesion to the airframe with little cracking or chipping.

Our chemical engineering just was not as good as the Europeans during the war. The milling of our paint was too coarse. This made it more difficult to achieve a smooth finish and caused the coating to be thicker making it vulnerable to cracking.

All the best,

Crumpp

Insuber
04-12-2009, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Said tha the paint covred all those rivets am sheeit and made it more streemlined. I believe it.

That is pretty much it. That is really an added benefit of technology as the main reason to paint is corrosion resistance. The smoother finish results in less drag which is why a smooth, polished finish is in demand. Look at your unlimited class racers. Very few are polished bare aluminum.

Frankly that is an even tougher aircraft finish to maintain than painting! A bare aluminum airframe is very vulnerable to corrosion and represents a significant increase in the amount of required maintenance. The USAAF duralumin was more vulnerable to corrosion than the European alloys due to the higher cupric content.

Good paint is easy to achieve that smooth finish in a thin coat. The paint is durable and offers good adhesion to the airframe with little cracking or chipping.

Our chemical engineering just was not as good as the Europeans during the war. The milling of our paint was too coarse. This made it more difficult to achieve a smooth finish and caused the coating to be thicker making it vulnerable to cracking.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember reading here that the P51 finish was done by applying a "secret" synthetic stucco, which once smoothed and polished gave the plane less drag. But maybe it was just forum BS.

Regards,
Ins