USAAF camo/all metal finish

Thanks guys. As I knew you would, you’ve cleared it up nicely for me.

Actually, aerodynamically speaking, a slightly rough (matt paint) surface would be better. It would make the airframe more slippery.

Which had something to do with why the NMF Mustang still had silver painted wings.

Seems to me there was a confidence about it too. Nose colors and rudder colors started showing up and got more prominant the further into 44 they got. It was almost a “We’re coming, what are you going to do about it” attitude.

That’s speaking for Fighter pilots btw. Not sure a Bomber crew felt the same way.

I agree with the above posts – the weight gain of painting an aircraft is considerable – think of the weight of a 5 litre tin of paint! Aerodynamics are affected too.

Actually, aerodynamically speaking, a slightly rough (matt paint) surface would be better. It would make the airframe more slippery.

It happened around March 1944 to save paint and weight ,quicker production times ?

Another reason,as related to me by members of the 357th FG,is during the winter of 1944 it was decided that bare metal was actually harder to spot,at least from above,against a snow covered europe.

As others have mentioned an Olive Drab painted B-17 weighed around a quarter ton more than the same model in NMF.

Garry.

I bet at altitude in the sun, a silver aircraft could be as hard a target as a camo one.

I agree with the above posts – the weight gain of painting an aircraft is considerable – think of the weight of a 5 litre tin of paint! Aerodynamics are affected too.

There is another reason for the lack of camo too – late in the war, air superiority had been gained and so US aircraft (In theory at least) pretty much had the skies to themselves (I’m sure the guys that were there would completely disagree!). There would have been no need for high altitude aircraft (B29, etc) to have camo…..

Thats what I’ve been taught anyway……:rolleyes:

As usual Moggy is correct.

Appearently by 1944 (or so) someone in the US decided that camo wasn’t worth the effort or weight so combat aircraft started appearing without it.
In the U.S., trainers never had camo and many stateside-operated transports didn’t use it either.

(Aside from the weight/performace issue as mentioned by Moggy, it would have streamlined the assembly process and made life easier for ground crews in not having to touch-up paint…not that a lot of it was done by looking at weathered aircraft in period photos:D ).
I’m guessing due to the expected short life span of combat aircraft no one was too concerned with corrosion…but note all carrier-based Navy aircraft always had paint.

So in the field, some aircraft were repaired with contrasting parts from another aircraft…and some older planes were stripped of paint. Local commanders had the option of deciding what to do. Basically units operated a mix of schemes until the end of the war or until older models were withdrawn from service.
So its rare that you’ll see a later model plane with camo (B-29s or C-54s or late B-17Gs, P-47Ds, P-51Ds) but some were out there.
Really late war aircraft like P-51Hs, P-47Ns, C-46Es, B-32s were never painted in operational service.

Since the 8th Air Force invariably went over mob handed in a huge circus, at the later stage of the war accompanied by hordes of fighters, they were actually pretty hard not to notice, even in cammo (Which had little effect anyway at high altitude).

It could be argued that it served a purpose for stragglers trying to make it home on the deck, but in truth the crews preferred the extra performance gained from the polished finish and the lighter weight.

Moggy