Jump to content
D.B. Andrus

Late War RLM usage of 81/82, etc.

Recommended Posts

Useful...

 

Just because it is one of the only 'higher number' colours we haven't mentioned, what about RLM 80. I sometimes wonder if it is to be more associated with 78 and 79 or with the 'green group' of (80) 81 and 82..  Do we know how it came about? was it 'designed' to complement 79 on uppersurfaces of tropical schemes? 

 

I hardly ever even think of RLM 72 and 73 but just thought I'd mention them for completeness. Did they have a special formulation due to their maritime application?

 

Regarding your last post, is the 7140/7141 indicating the use as a finish suitable for wood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Vincent... I need to digest this and give you a break from my incessant questions...( and think of some more.. :) )

 

This is great stuff.

 

Thanks

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vincent/MDC said:

 

You're not reading what i'm writing it seems : RLM76 for alclad WAS applied to bare metal because it contained the passivization ingredients. Where the US manufacturers would apply a coat of zinc chromate first then a layer of underside camo color, the german would only apply RLM76. Underneath the parts in 76 i have, there's nothing, nada, nix, rien. And this would hold fine until some corrosion made its way underneath a crack and would start the flaking

 

Please Vincent. I am reading what you write. And I am being polite at the same time. And not being difficult, but trying to establish fact rather than opinion.

 

However I've not come across any independent evidence to support your idea that RLM76 was a finish coat first and then became a primer at wars end. Your ideas are interesting, but not, in my view, supported by independent evidence. Earlier in this thread you stressed the importance of well established researchers contributing to this debate. Do you have any primary source for your theory of 76 becoming a primer with a special protective formulation? Perhaps an RLM instruction to paint manufacturers to ensure this? You've made a lot of statements above about 76 composition changing as the war progressed, and colours 'being super easy to get'. Where is the evidence for this? You may have access to information that I am unaware of. I note that your list of 'passivization' paints above doesn't include a 7122.76.

 

Or, is it as I suggested above, that desperation eventually forced the use of topcoat paints (chemically unaltered) as a single coat onto bare metal? More likely I feel. Saves time, resources and money getting the airframes out of the door and into the air. With the next step being the abandonment of paint altogether (as we know started to happen).

 

Remember, Occam's Razor... 

 

I wonder if the pending publication that Jerry Crandall referred to some pages back will shed any further light on this? Or if any of his preserved aircraft parts will support your idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mattlow said:

I'm not sure lighting would explain the presence of a green tinged RLM 66 but in close proximity to what we'd call standard RLM 66. I think there's clearly a colour difference, it is seen in Me 163 as well (some photos somewhere).

 

udlr1kP.jpg

 

cmO2chx.jpg

 

14 hours ago, Troy Molitor said:

 Every Airbus and every Boeing aircraft in service today has this Dynatrol applied to the wet areas from the fuselage water line down.  The entire wheel bay areas are nicely coated in this stuff.   

 

Do you mean it was applied in the field ? I was a process inspector at a Boeing satellite and

inspected painted detail and sub assemblies and I've never heard of Dynatrol. Landing gear

parts and assemblies were painted a light gray gloss (easy to clean) and that was it.

The paints they use today are highly durable and wouldn't require any further protection from

moisture . I was not involved in finished product paint but I've never seen them coat anything

once painted. They paint the airplane, unmask and roll it out.  Just sayin'  :shrug:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occam's razor?

 

If generally this makes sense, I would not consider that principle to be so obvious in wartime Germany. There are countless examples of precious raw materials or resources dedicated to rather useless projects or prototypes whereas they were lacking for the production of critical weapons. Moreover, the level of quality control still maintained in German factories at the end of the war is surprising even if it had somewhat decreased. In any case, it was not aligned with the totally hectic situation in the field during the last months of the war. The role of the nazi bureaucracy up to 1945 should not be underestimated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thierry laurent said:

Occam's razor?

 

If generally this makes sense, I would not consider that principle to be so obvious in wartime Germany. There are countless examples of precious raw materials or resources dedicated to rather useless projects or prototypes whereas they were lacking for the production of critical weapons. Moreover, the level of quality control still maintained in German factories at the end of the war is surprising even if it had somewhat decreased. In any case, it was not aligned with the totally hectic situation in the field during the last months of the war. The role of the nazi bureaucracy up to 1945 should not be underestimated. 

 

I totally agree with all of your comments Thierry. I am simply making the point that a simple explanation, with the least speculation and fewest assumptions, is the more likely explanation where two or more are competing. In this case, the simple approach being that exterior paint was applied directly to bare metal without any primer, rather than the paint being reformulated late in the war for single application use (as Vincent maintains).

 

I think this aspect of this thread has run its course anyway. I'm a great enthusiast for constructive debate normally, but here this is not a real debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Padraic Conway said:

I think this aspect of this thread has run its course anyway. I'm a great enthusiast for constructive debate normally, but here this is not a real debate.

 

I don't really agree. 

 

It is difficult for us to really debate as there's not really a structure, we're darting around as various aspects catch our attention.

 

Back to the explanation, I think the main thing that you are premising your argument on is that paint was re-formulated 'late in the war'.  Most of the paints we discuss aren't late in the war in terms of introduction (though of course the two in the original thread title are) and even in terms of 81/82 we're not sure of their origins, so they may not be as late as the term would suggest.  As I think you said, the progenitors of these colours were possibly being developed for/on the Eastern Front for a couple of years..?

 

I also think if you look at Vincent's responses to my barrage of questions, you'll see that he doesn't think 81/82 were formulated as a combo and relied upon RLM 76 as a base/primer coat (as did 74 and 75). I am not wedded to the notion of a combo 81/82, I merely suggested it was possible and would be very useful (Vincent's explanation seemed to place no barrier to the creation of 81/82 combo paints, even if there is no documentation showing they existed).

 

EDIT: His sources appear to be two sets of painting instructions.  "as to the source, it is the paint manufacturer's instructions that were delivered to Finland when stocks of RLM74,75 and 76 were purchased in 1943 to support the deliveries of the G2 and G6, as well as the instructions given with the stocks of RLM65 purchased in 1942 (? from memory)" and  "The He-162 document states that metal fuselage parts are to be painted entirely in 7122.76 (logical) and then RLM82 on top of the 7122.76 then RLM81 on top of  RLM82. The document gives no paint references for the 81 and 82, suggesting that only the hue is important to the RLM" Second quote is where Vincent is pretty much agreeing with your premise that 81/82 were not combo paints... end edit. I have no idea what either document is and haven't seen either soI suppose I am taking Vincent's comments at face value here (though I'd love to see the originals/transcripts).

 

It therefore stands to reason that if 81 wasn't a combo paint and we see aircraft with a thin layer of 81 over bare metal your suggestion is entirely probable - why not, if you've got shiny aircraft that need dulling down before leaving the relative safety of a forest factory, 81 sans primer is better than nothing. If I got carried away along a certain line of thought it didn't mean your suggestion was discounted.

 

Matt

Edited by mattlow
Added quotes regarding 76 as primer sources..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

Answering your question above. All aircraft leaving the factory today have the CPCP ( corrosion prevention corrosion  control program) systems applied to all the wet areas.. These areas are basically the floor level down throughout the cabin sub floor area, rear spars, and entire wheel well areas.  The galley and lavatory areas are the most important.  For obvious reasons.  After an HMV ( heavy maintenance visit) the areas that were opened up cleaned and inspected have Dynatrol reapplied.  The Ta -152 picture from the last page.  Look at the push pull tubes for the rudder pedals.  The amber brown color spots is present on the tubes.  This interior (to me any way ) was sprayed with some type of preservative.. The pictures we are looking at are 70 year  old aircraft in color pictures of these aircraft today.  I would suggest and hope  “many have been treated”  as an aviation classic to be preserved for future generations to admire.  I have sold aircraft in the meditrainian after the first 10 years HMV check and they were found to be BER ( beyond economical repair ) with rear spar corrosion that was never ending was enough to sell it off to a disassembly facility.  Guess what, at the 6Y check the coorsion prevention was never reapplied.  The aircraft flew in a salt laden environment its entire career and once bitten its hard to get removed.  I saw an A330 that had a container full of mercury that ruptured on board and spilled thought the lower lobe areas in the cargo bins.  Total BER candidate.  

 

Im in no way saying there could never be two different hues of RLM 66 however.  Just making an entirely new hypothesis on what I’m seeing in some of these picture.  

 

I like what Vincent has mentioned on the primer colors.  The bright yellow is the new RLM 02 gents!   Lol. I love these topics.   I need help with my earlier question answered on the splinter upper camoflage for the late He-162!   

 

We should all help write this damn book for somebody to keep this topic evolving.  More importanly thanks to all for contributing!   

 

Troy  

 

Troy 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vincent/MDC said:

 

I took these pictures in Ottawa !

 

We had a wonderful discussion with the restoration team back then (in 2000) about the "mysterious" green cockpit color

 

V

I had seen this aircraft in 1987... was a sight to see in what I was told back then the original colors...

 

cheers

Uwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...