WWII Aircraft in Fabric (Especially USN) - Same paint as on metal areas?

[seiran01]

A question for the experten!  

 

For aircraft that were partially covered in fabric in WW2, would a different formulation of paint have been used depending on whether it was going on doped fabric or on metal panels? I'm thinking particularly for USN aircraft operating in the Pacific but would be interested to know of other services' practices as well if there is information on it.  If there were any differences in paint formulation for fabric v metal, is it reasonable to assume that all paints would have still needed to match the standardized colors indicated for the plane?  

 

I think I read somewhere that fabric areas on the F4U tended to fade faster than the rest of the plane, is there any truth to that?

 

Thanks very much for any information on this,

Mike

[Oldbaldguy]

Surprised no one has jumped on this yet, so I'll give it a go.  Seventy five or so years ago fabric surfaces on aircraft were doped, not painted like metal surfaces.  Applying liquid dope to fabric is a multi step process that attaches, tightens, seals and protects the fabric.  The final coat(s) of dope can be pigmented to match whatever color you want, although a doped surface is not going to look the same as a metal one because it is more like a bedsheet than a sheet of aluminum.  The fabrics and liquids most commonly used at the time were Grade A cotton, linen and butyrate or something similarly organic and not the synthetic stuff you see today.  Although supposedly the same color, pigmented dope almost never exactly matches the same color of paint.   Dope does not lie on the surface of fabric like paint does but is pushed into the weave and becomes a structural part of the fabric covering.  Paint doesn't do well on fabric surfaces because the fabric is much more flexible than paint, expanding and contracting underneath it and constantly in motion from vibration and simple use as the air presses on it -- think drum head and you'll get the idea.  Additionally, it is very hard to repair or patch damaged fabric that has been painted with regular paint -- the dope used to adhere the repair to the rest of the fabric won't stick to paint, so the repair won't last.  Ease of repair would have been a big deal in any combat theater then as now, so...   As to fading, I think it is safe to say that not a single soul who frequents this site has actually seen the surfaces of an operational Corsair after a year or two of duty in the Pacific theater, so none can tell you with any certainty whether their fabric covered control surfaces faded differently than the rest of the airplane or not.  However, based on my own experience with fabric covered airplanes and the contrariness of paint and dope plus the myriad photos from the day of Corsairs in the PTO, I'd opine that it would be the safest of bets that their fabric surfaces were not the same color as the rest of the airplane unless they were brand new.   As in all things military, there are "book" standards and there is operational reality and often the two only vaguely resemble each other, which is another way of saying that there is no right or wrong in most situations, only generalities.  Generally, fabric from that era will look and fade differently from the metal on the same airplane. 

[ringleheim]

Aside from all that good information from "Oldbaldguy" (LOL), I would simply add that, for purposes of making a model airplane, all that really matters here is what the various surfaces would look like.  Not what they were composed of, how they were applied, and stuff like that...as interesting as all that type of stuff is.

 

I would definitely say that the fabric surfaces should be more of a lighter, faded sort of look compared to the metal surfaces near them.

 

And that begs the question: how do you achieve that look?

 

Adding white is the way to go, I think, even if this can make colors look chalky at times.  

 

You can add more interesting colors to achieve the same effect (deck tan, buff, cream, flesh) etc., but then you start color shifting the base color away from what it should be.  If you correct for that, it's OK, but it complicates the process.

 

I used to fade colors for modeling with things like flesh or buff, as its more "artistic" in a way and avoids the chalky look, but over the years have gone back to white.

 

It creates a more "true" tint of the original color.

 

Colors have 3 components: tints, tones, and shades.

 

A base color with white added forms a tint.  Add gray (black and white) and it forms  a tone.  Add black and it forms a shade.

Terms like "shade" are often misused when people discuss color/art topics.

 

I'm digressing now and I'll stop!

 

 

 

[ringleheim]

29 minutes ago, D.B. Andrus said:

Adding white only increases the value(lightness) and does not decrease the intensity(saturation).....medium blue to a light blue. Adding a very light gray (US spelling...) slightly tinted with the complementary color (see Color Wheel on web) of the paint you're trying to "fade" may give more realistic look. For example, USN Flat Sea Blue: Add a light gray tinted very slightly toward orange will raise the value(dark to light) and decrease the intensity (move more toward the gray). This will give a more natural sun-faded result rather than solely adding white to a paint.

 

That's my take.

 

Cheers,

Damian

Well that's the opposite of where I'm coming from.  That's the artistic approach, and there's a lot to be said for that.

Reminds me of an art teacher telling me not to create shades of yellow by adding blacks and browns to darken the yellow (painting a banana as an exercise, LOL) but to use purples and dark blues.

 

That approach looks "better" but it's less realistic.  Bananas don't turn purple as they ripen.

 

We're entering the realm of "what looks better" here and that has to be left to the individual modeler I think.

 

It also makes me wonder what plane we are talking about exactly, what is the color of blue (for a US Navy WWII aircraft, they used several) and what did the real thing look like as it faded!  

 

Did it color shift? I.E., not just lighten, but shift?  It may have!

 

I always like this photo, but it's hard to draw conclusions from it, especially on a computer screen.

 

Check out the elevators.  They almost look a dirty gray-brown. 

 

 

 

[STWilliams]

1 hour ago, D.B. Andrus said:

Whatever.

My teenage son would approve.

[jenshb]

Although this thread is mostly about USN, it might be relevant to discuss British practices too?  Can't say I've noticed any difference in appearance between fabric and non-fabric surfaces, so surely they must be painted?  If paint does not stick well to doped fabric, would we not see flaking on fabric covered control surfaces like elevators and rudders for Hurricanes (or indeed the entire rear fuselage of that one), Spitfires and Mosquitos?  These parts were camouflaged, and surely it would be impractical to apply two shades of dope at the upper surfaces and a third one underneath at the point of manufacture?  My understanding of British techniques for treatment of fabric covered surfaces (feel free to correct me if I'm wring) are first a layer of red dope, then silver dope (for UV resistance) and then finally the camouflage colours. 

[Oldbaldguy]

Hmmm.  Good points.  I'm old but certainly not old enough to have first hand knowledge of how the Brits did things during The Big One.  I would be remiss if I did not point out that it's a fairly common practice these days for people to paint their fabric covered airplanes more or less successfully with enamel or high gloss poly-whatever, so it's not like it won't work.  Most add a flexing agent to the paint to make it stick better and last longer.  In my experience, heavy high gloss, wet look color coats on fabric will crack quicker than thinner flat coats which seem to be more flexible/durable in high vibration/high handling areas.  U.S. manufacturers of military aircraft moved away from tube and fabric construction with the exception of control surfaces well before the war started so we may have lost the bubble a bit when it comes to what sticks to what.  Standard practice for a long time in the U.S. when painting any airplane is to remove and paint all control surfaces separately because they must be static balanced to prevent flutter before putting them back on, so it would have been very easy to use colored dope on fabric surfaces and paint the rest of the airplane.  That might account for the fabric surfaces on U.S. airplanes obviously wearing/fading differently from the rest of the airframe.