discussion Semi Gloss or Matt

[Guest]

Struggling to find a definitive date for the first introduction of the Type S paints. Don't authors realise this stuff is important:mrgreen: I need to know,and so does Colin (Cooperman69)

Supermarine led the way on 25-9-42.

Edgar

 

[stona]

Thanks Edgar,so the new Sky colour,appearing as a type S paint in 1940,was a fore runner so to speak. I'm sure I read somewhere,maybe from your good self,that there were initially questions raised about the reflectivity of the new paint when experimentally applied to Blenheims.

I didn't realise how late the general introduction was,duly noted now!

I'm sticking to the Luftwaffe......as soon as I've got my PCM Hurricane done :1newwink:

Steve

 

[Guest]

Does any one know of a book written by an RAF ground crew member or even a member living in the UK. It would be very interesting from the model community point of view to have it from the horse's mouth. Lots of books by pilots infact an incredible collection compared to the army & more so the Royal Navy.

What happened for instance in Malta, Kenya, Greece,Iraq the Desert Airforce. Cannot imagine they had great repair facilities. Getting the stuff to these places was a nightmare. In Malta according to Johnny Kent they took the worst aircraft & used it for spares. What chance for instance for the RAF when Montgomery found at Brindisi that one of the first boats in dropped a load of Durex & other such wayward items on the pier but no ammunition.

Can imagine in the desert the problems they had. Would think they were desperate in just keeping out the sand rather than the camouflage looks of the aircraft. A large piece of history missing here.

Laurie

 

[stona]

Can imagine in the desert the problems they had. Would think they were desperate in just keeping out the sand rather than the camouflage looks of the aircraft. A large piece of history missing here.

Laurie

Absolutely right Laurie but it is important to distinguish between what happened after an aircraft had been accepted and entered service and what happened during the production process. Both were subject to stringent rules but what went on at a forward airfield in North Africa may well have been very different to what went on in a factory near Birmingham.

I really can't comment on the structure of the RAF repair system as I don't know much about it. Someone else may elucidate for us.

I am familiar with the structure of the maintenance system used by the Germans and it is quite a complicated structure. I have a schematic of this which I could post elsewhere for anyone interested but I warn you that it looks like the menu system for a Japanese knitting machine!

In simple terms basic repairs were made at operational level (Staffel,Gruppe or Geshwader level)

Larger repairs were made at an administrative level by the Airfield Regional Command.

Both of these were in a chain of command headed by the Luftwaffe via the appropriate Luftflotte.

For large repairs, rebuilds,or upgrades aircraft were passed by the Luftwaffe to German industry where the work was done by the manufacturers and specialist repair,salvage and overhaul firms. This is another complicated structure in itself. Storage of salvageable parts etc was the responsibility of the aircraft industry although of course the Luftwaffe would approve and accept the rebuilt or repaired aircraft.

You will sometimes see an aircraft with a Werknummer ending with the letter F. This stood for "Flugklar" and indicated that a repaired or rebuilt machine was cleared to fly again.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Guest]

I accept your 'superior' knowledge of the procedures regarding the process and quality control.:haha:

My knowledge lies in the painting process, having been a paint chemist for a few years.

I am merely offering possibilities for variations.

I can't swear that what I said took place, just that it is a likely possibility.

First of all, although good, the paint development was quite primitive back then.

Some colours were easier to produce in a matt finish than others. (I think this is fairly obvious in one or two of the pictures posted) Possibly one of the reasons they moved towards semi gloss finish!?

The only way to get a near permanent finish in those periods was with stove enamels. This for obvious reasons was impractical on an aircraft. Plus it added a tremendous weight penalty!

Treated, untreated!

Again a matter of interpretation I think!

A treated panel is one where the surface has had a chemical process in order to improve the surface coating adhesion.

Aluminium can be etched or blasted in order to remove the oxide coating that naturally forms. Without removing the oxide coating the paint finish is somewhat temporary!

Etch primers were developed to combat this, but they were only a stop gap.

As the old saying goes, "It's all in the preparation!"

I don't believe that the panels used in the construction of these aircraft were pretreated, as this requires the paint to be applied immediately after treatment.

Steel can be pretreated and left in that state as the treatment process is stable. The process with aluminium is different.

Again, these are just suggestions as I wasn't there at the time!:haha:

 

[stona]

Stove enamels! I'd love to have seen that process applied to an aircraft!

Some aircraft parts were protected by an etching process,I'm thinking of some german landing gear components. I can't remember the name of the process but it resulted in a gold/bronze type appearance. Not relevant to painting.

The standard protective paints at the time were zinc chromate based primers though these were often tinted and became the final coat. I've no idea what was on the Spitfire as an undercoat,just that it was a grey primer. Edgar may know more.

The Germans didn't prime their airframes as much and they used a Zinc Oxide primer that the Americans deemed inferior. If you can get hold of the Vultee report done on a Bf110 in the U.S. there is a section on the laquers and preparation used by Messerschmitt.

Cheers

Steve

Edit,here's a page or two you may find of interest.

Steve

 

[Guest]

Steve,

Do you have a larger version of that page?

It is a little too small for my eyes.

 

[stona]

Hi Terry,that's how it scans. You could try right clicking and saving to your computer. Then you could open it with your normal picture program which should allow you to zoom in or magnify.

It's been a while since I read through the report,I might have another go soon!

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

I thought I remembered an issue with the Sky applied to Blenheims. I've got a bit cross threaded but here is a response from Edgar Brooks.

"When Bristol got the go-ahead to paint P.R. Blenheims in Sky, they were told to use paint "with reduced gloss," which doesn't sound like matt paint to me."

That's a little out of context here so it is only fair to say that despite the suffix "Type S" added to this paint the Air Ministry wanted a matt paint with a smooth finish. Whether they got one or not is,as we've established,open to interpretation. It's a matter of degree,noone is claiming that a glossy finish was intended or ever applied to aircraft.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Guest]

Hi Terry,that's how it scans. You could try right clicking and saving to your computer. Then you could open it with your normal picture program which should allow you to zoom in or magnify.It's been a while since I read through the report,I might have another go soon!

Cheers

Steve

I did download it ,but it becomes too blocky to read when you zoom in.

 

[Guest]

I thought I remembered an issue with the Sky applied to Blenheims. I've got a bit cross threaded but here is a response from Edgar Brooks."When Bristol got the go-ahead to paint P.R. Blenheims in Sky, they were told to use paint "with reduced gloss," which doesn't sound like matt paint to me."

Adding a matting agent to a standard formula was the 'norm' back then with the paint companies.

It wasn't until they discovered that the Military were quite lucrative markets (after WW2) that development went into the paint formulas.