Spraying Camouflage In WWII

Interesting topic, this. Looking a bit wider, it was the case that in Russian, French and Italian aviation manufacture no such masks or templates were used. I could not state this was so to 100% certainty for Japanese aviation, but I think it was quite likely true there, also.

The application of camouflage in this way was seen not only to be practical, but also desirable. Such a strictly repeating pattern, surely, would draw the human eye just as readily as incongruous colouration. Random deviation from the agreed pattern idea was regarded as a counter to this problem, and was widely encouraged in those countries’ manufacturing programmes.

However, military thinking being what it is, strict conformity was required by some Air Forces. This was self-evidently the case with the RAF, and it seems that some US manufacturers did likewise. Certainly we can say that Curtiss employed such mats (at least sometimes) for factory applied camouflage, as this image shows these being used on some P-40 aircraft. Whether these are similar to any mats used similarly in British manufacture, I cannot say.

It is an interesting picture, but as a general measure aircraft were not painted after assembly (as shown here) other than to touch up areas. Large parts such as wings and fuselages were painted as sub-assemblies. This can be seen in many photos of assembly lines of both heavy bombers and fighters.

It wouldn’t surprise me too much if some companies, especially the smaller ones, did paint aircraft after assembly, but biplanes do seem to be rather complicated for that process.

I would say they are posed for the camera too…….. unless in the war years they found a way to remove all overspray from the room….

It is an interesting picture, but as a general measure aircraft were not painted after assembly (as shown here) other than to touch up areas. Large parts such as wings and fuselages were painted as sub-assemblies. This can be seen in many photos of assembly lines of both heavy bombers and fighters.

It wouldn’t surprise me too much if some companies, especially the smaller ones, did paint aircraft after assembly, but biplanes do seem to be rather complicated for that process.

While researching the Haynes Tiger Moth Manual (out next month, please buy, money needed to fix old aeroplanes!), I came across these two pictures in the deHMC archive of the painting operation at Cowley in 1940.

Two very nice photos – but they were taken after May 1942 as that style of roundel and fin-flash was not introduced until then.

It wasn’t the position of the wavy line that was important; it was that the transition between colours should be as clean a line as possible, with no rough over, or under, spray, since that roughness induced drag.
The instructions said “approximately” to the drawn pattern, and overlaid the drawings with 1’0″ squares to help with the design, but not to be followed slavishly. It was felt that a small amount of rough spray could be tolerated, hence the 1″ allowance between colours (and a whopping 2″ for the demarcation between upper and lower colours) when freehand painting was inevitable. The only precise measurements were at edges of main items, for instance the green, on the trailing edge of the starboard wing, started 24″ inboard of the aileron, and spread out for 31.25″ onto said aileron. On the port wing the measurements were 50″ and 42.75″.
Edgar

That sounds like a job for someone at Boscombe down, paint A/C strictly to Supermarine drg 9999.9, flight test, note top speed, return, paint said A/C freestyle i.e not exactly to drg 9999.9, flight test, note top speed, return; if any difference between before and after,repaint A/C slightly beyond limits set in drg 9999.9, but not as radically different as before, flight test, note top speed, land, return to office to find the war finished last year….

While researching the Haynes Tiger Moth Manual (out next month, please buy, money needed to fix old aeroplanes!), I came across these two pictures in the deHMC archive of the painting operation at Cowley in 1940.

Neither a rubber mat, nor a stencil in sight. I suspect that a stencil of some kind was used to mark up the aeroplane, then it was down to the hand-eye co-ordination of the man with the spray gun.

In September 1940 (well that’s the date on the photos, even if the roundels are wrong!), I suspect that speed was of greater importance than a perfect finish!

(Pictures courtesy of the de Havilland Moth Club archive)

Is there not a difference between stencil mats, and spray mats?, I can see the logic in using a mat to mark out the various edges, but not to spray up to, these were fighting machines, surely an inch here and there wouldn’t have mattered (unlike now).

It wasn’t the position of the wavy line that was important; it was that the transition between colours should be as clean a line as possible, with no rough over, or under, spray, since that roughness induced drag.
The instructions said “approximately” to the drawn pattern, and overlaid the drawings with 1’0″ squares to help with the design, but not to be followed slavishly. It was felt that a small amount of rough spray could be tolerated, hence the 1″ allowance between colours (and a whopping 2″ for the demarcation between upper and lower colours) when freehand painting was inevitable. The only precise measurements were at edges of main items, for instance the green, on the trailing edge of the starboard wing, started 24″ inboard of the aileron, and spread out for 31.25″ onto said aileron. On the port wing the measurements were 50″ and 42.75″.
Edgar

Is there not a difference between stencil mats, and spray mats?, I can see the logic in using a mat to mark out the various edges, but not to spray up to, these were fighting machines, surely an inch here and there wouldn’t have mattered (unlike now).

I can see where your coming from, but the time expended and materials (paper, tape etc) to mask up and demask in a war time Britain, and you would them be getting a harder demarkation line.

I would have thought the lay over a bevelled mat and squirt method would be both cheaper and quicker, using far less resources in the process.

Is there not a difference between stencil mats, and spray mats?, I can see the logic in using a mat to mark out the various edges, but not to spray up to, these were fighting machines, surely an inch here and there wouldn’t have mattered (unlike now).

He did remember that Spitfires were not painted all in one go, it took too long.

There is certainly evidence of that in Castle Bromwich photos. Lots of pictures of Spitfires painted but with newly fitted, un-painted, cowling panels.

Was talking to an elderly gent admiring my plastic Spitfire in the garden, he eventually let on that he built Spitfires at Castle Bromwich. He fitted the instruments etc. After a while I remembered this thread and asked about the masking mats and how they were painted. He seemed to recall never seeing mats used for camouflage masking but he saw mats used for protecting the wings. He did remember that Spitfires were not painted all in one go, it took too long.

The conversation went back to instruments.

Baz

I’ve had a drawing, with the same instruction, for some time, and never read it properly. This comes from the drawing (held at Hendon) for the Portuguese Spitfires.
Edgar

Supermarines drawings specified Stencil mats were to be produced,

Thanks Tony – have used that drawing many times but never picked up on that note! Next time I am going to try to re-create this method – just need a Spitfire 😉

Would still love to see some pictures of the mats ‘in action’ in the UK.

Thanks for that. I’ve passed the link on for the doubters, with credit.

Supermarines drawings specified Stencil mats were to be produced,

OK uploaded this BEWARE IT IS A TIFF FILE AND IS 4283 x 3338 and is HUGE..

It is one of the original Supermarine/ Vickers Drawings for the Spitfire Paint schemes

http://www.skonk.net/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1350&g2_serialNumber=2

It tells you about the mats, just to the left of the bottom title block.

Enjoy.

As I understand it, evidence for these mats has come from sources including Hawkers, Supermarine, Westland and Boulton Paul, but not from Avro, Handley Page or Shorts. Is this just an artefact of the limited information, or were things really done differently on large and small aircraft?

…a padded support stick.

It’s called a maulstick. Standard item for artists painting large canvases in the Victorian era, particularly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulstick

As to the main question, there’s evidence of pre-war and wartime painting techniques in film, I vaguely recall, including Fairey Hendons… But I can’t recall the use (or non use!) of mats either way.

My impression was a lot of it depended on the factory or company, rather than national or even international standards or norms implied so far.

The popular cartoon of sheets of newspaper hanging in the toilet is not a myth; my aunt told of the relief (her word) when toilet paper finally reappeared post-war.

Sorry to go off thread but my Grandmother’s external shared toilet still had the “Sunday Post” torn sheets hanging from a nail in 1962. 🙂

Steve, sorry if I came across as defensive; it’s a subject that has caused me hours of research, after an “expert,” on a modelling forum, went to great lengths to “prove” that the mats didn’t exist, even to saying that sprayers are “proud men,” and would have discarded the mats at the first opportunity. I pointed out that, in wartime Britain, anyone with that attitude would need to be pretty quick on their feet, to avoid the factory gate smashing into their backside as it closed behind them.
There’s an interesting exhibit, in the Tangmere museum; it’s a German liferaft, and the notice says that it’s only there because it’s made of neoprene, and there’s no matching RAF liferaft because they were made solely out of rubber, and have totally disintegrated. I’ve just retired from working on aircraft instruments, and orders for rubber O-rings have to be kept to a minimum, because CAA rules will only allow them to have a 5-year shelf-life; neoprene has no limiting life.
Although I’ve not been able to find it, there is supposed to be mention, in an old Ian Huntley article, of how Boulton Paul chamfered the edges of their mats, to allow a faint feathered edge. I have a letter, from the Westland historian, verifying their use of mats, and he says that it included the roundels. However, it would not surprise me if roundels were (or could have been) painted freehand; watch any signwriter in action, and you’ll marvel at the precision, with just a long paintbrush and a padded support stick. Draw a circle, using a pencil on a length of string, and he’d think it was his birthday, it’d be so easy.
It isn’t generally appreciated that paper was a fairly strategic material, during the war, and, with weekly collections, was continually being recycled (inspection of the brown shade, and fragility, of newspapers/magazines, by 1946, will give a good indication,) so paper masking was not an option. The popular cartoon of sheets of newspaper hanging in the toilet is not a myth; my aunt told of the relief (her word) when toilet paper finally reappeared post-war.
Edgar

I was using the technique to see how it worked – I was not saying that roundels were painted in this way- just that I had some small roundels to play with.

Sorry – it was your phrase ‘re-create this approach to painting roundels’ that seemed to indicate it was a method that had been used in the past.