Anyone got any period photos of Spitfires with oil canning?

[MikeMaben]

11 hours ago, Pete Roberts said:

 If you are going to quote me, please use the entire relevant parts. Thank you

 

I quoted the part my response was referring to.

[Pete Roberts]

1 hour ago, MikeMaben said:

 

I quoted the part my response was referring to.

Really? Disappointing Mike

[Christa]

So, agents of British aircraft weathering - wind, rain, sleet, snow, mud, slush, ice, sand, gravel, hailstones, hobnailed boots (really?), leather soles, belt and harness buckles, tool box bottoms, spilt fluids, dropped spanners, low quality paint or poor paint application and intensive use, for a period under attack on the ground as well as aloft . However, BoB was relatively short. Consider BoB veteran aircraft's subsequent upgrades and conversions, utilisation with training squadrons and as instructional airframes. An undated, well weathered Spitfire Mk 1a is of little validity. Gazzas needs images with dates.

 

I agree with Thierry, some RAF fighter aircraft may have got a bit scruffy in the summer of 1940, if they lasted long enough, without touch ups or trips to the menders for repair and reissue, but how much evidence, with dates, depicts well weathered fighters that summer?

 

I thought oil canning was an outcome of several factors, including repeated operational airframe stresses, particularly significant and rapid temperature changes. Fighters climbing from summer ground temperatures to to sub zero values at altitude and back to ground three of four times daily, on repeat, would surely stretch and shrink skins, to say nothing of the stresses imposed during combat maneuvers. Clambering ground crew would leave dints in skins too. Do dints, distortions and bends count as oil canning?

 

As an aside Mike, I don't believe British summer weather was so destructive of aircraft paint during BoB. Just as well early Spitfires never flew with the U.S. Marines on those Pacific islands and atolls. British summer drip and shiver may be dismal, but it was probably kinder to airframes than salty sea air and relentless bake and blast with coral grit such as U.S. Marines' F4Us were subjected to?

 

Also, that Hobnailed Armourer is not standing on the Spitfire.

[Gazzas]

Anyhow....  

 

I'd like to thank you all for the great responses and detailed photos even if they weren't exactly what I sought. 

 

I may now have to wonder if the service guys of all air forces were given soft-soled shoes to go wing walking.  I'll do more research on that as I go.

 

So, my Kotare Spit will most likely not get any denting, or oil canning.

[Oldbaldguy]

I think this one has reached its natural end, but I’m compelled to point out that oil-canning, in large part, depends on the structure of the airframe.  Airframes made of stringers and bulkheads with aluminum sheet riveted over it will oil can almost immediately because the underlying structure made of many pieces riveted together is dynamic and moves around under normal flight loads, causing the metal skin attached to it to flex.  Older airframes may actually oil can less because their various thousands of parts have had the chance to get comfortable with each other through normal wear and settle down.  Construction methods matter as well.  Modern computer controlled drilling allows for perfectly matched rivet holes but even the best of drilling jigs from that era allowed for minor alignment variances that cause stresses in sheet metal that can lead to oil canning.  Sheet metal is just that - a sheet of metal that spans a gap in the structure it is attached to.  Each piece is independent with a mind of its own and sometimes may not play well with the parts it is attached to.  The thinner the sheet metal, the more flexible it is and the more likely it is oil can.   Preformed sheet metal such as leading edges, large fairings, cowlings and the like, is less likely to oil can than flat, stressed skin panels because it is inherently less flexible, its set shape making it stronger. You’ll notice that modern aircraft with large skin panels that are milled from billet stock to a specific shape rarely show evidence of oil canning at all.  Fabric does not oil can.  If a fabric surface is wrinkled or slack, then it was either applied incorrectly or the underlying airframe is damaged causing the fabric to lose it tautness.  Composite materials such as wood or fiberglass usually will not oil can - I’ve never seen oil canning on a Mosquito or a Long EZ.  Do not confuse wrinkled sheeted metal with oil canning.  Permanently wrinkled sheet metal that does not smooth out once flights loads are off is caused by deformation of the underlying structure.  Dents are something else entirely.  Properly set rivets mind their own business and do their job with minimum fuss and bother to the point that you forget they are even there.  Loose rivets that are worn and fretting in their holes will “smoke”, leaving narrow trails of smoky, oily residue that follow the airflow immediately downstream of the rivet - the more the smoke, the looser the rivet.  I don’t think gravity contributes as much to oil canning as it does to wrinkling.  If there is deformation due to gravity, then the airframe is stressed and deforming, not just the skin.  Okay.  Probably more than most wanted to know, so that’s all I have to say about that.

[Uncarina]

Thanks OBG and others, I’ve just learned a lot from this thread!

 

Cheers,  Tom

 

[rsanz]

Here's a photo of early production Spitfire Mk.I K9910 from 65 Squadron taken in March or April 1940 when it was about 12 months old. 

 

More images available from flickr here

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by rsanz
Deleted mirrored image to avoid confusion

[Gazzas]

33 minutes ago, rsanz said:

Here's a photo of early production Spitfire Mk.I K9910 from 65 Squadron taken in March or April 1940 when it was about 12 months old. 

 

More images available from flickr here

 

 

 

Wow!  Great photos!  Thank you very much!

[Uncarina]

2 hours ago, rsanz said:

Here's a photo of early production Spitfire Mk.I K9910 from 65 Squadron taken in March or April 1940 when it was about 12 months old. 

 

More images available from flickr here

 

 

Brilliant stuff, from the wingroots to the wrinkles on the headrest. I know, not necessarily oil can related but gold for other nuances.

 

Cheers,  Tom

[geedubelyer]

Great period photos @rsanz, thanks for sharing them. 

 

Is it possible that the third image of the four is mirrored? The wear on the wing roots looks to be the wrong way round. Heavier wear on the starboard wing instead of the port wing.

Also, comparing the first and third photos of the set, the bulges on the engine cowling are also mirrored. Worth considering perhaps if one wishes to accurately depict the sort of wear on airframes ?

 

Cheers.

[rsanz]

30 minutes ago, geedubelyer said:

Great period photos @rsanz, thanks for sharing them. 

 

Is it possible that the third image of the four is mirrored? The wear on the wing roots looks to be the wrong way round. Heavier wear on the starboard wing instead of the port wing.

Also, comparing the first and third photos of the set, the bulges on the engine cowling are also mirrored. Worth considering perhaps if one wishes to accurately depict the sort of wear on airframes ?

 

Cheers.

You are 100% right. I have deleted the mirrored image. 

[geedubelyer]

Hi rsanz, sorry that you felt the need to delete the image. I was not being critical, simply highlighting that the wear on the wing root is generally heavier on the port side and the mirror image gave a slightly distorted view for anyone hoping for accuracy. 

Is it possible to mirror that image in some photo editing software and re-instate the photo in your original post?

 

Cheers

[rsanz]

13 minutes ago, geedubelyer said:

Hi rsanz, sorry that you felt the need to delete the image. I was not being critical, simply highlighting that the wear on the wing root is generally heavier on the port side and the mirror image gave a slightly distorted view for anyone hoping for accuracy. 

Is it possible to mirror that image in some photo editing software and re-instate the photo in your original post?

 

Cheers

No it was simply a distraction. You can see that image and 100s(?) more by clicking the last image which takes you to 1 of many folders of a particularly useful Flickr member.

Edited December 2, 2022 by rsanz

[Gazzas]

This is exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about.   Nuances.  We build so many models collectively trying to be accurate with AM, decal sheets, custom masks, and weathering effects.  We build belly-landed aircraft with the only visible damage being bent propeller blades - though I imagine that scudding across the ground from 140-ish kph to full stop would have to be traumatic for the entire airframe.

 

A nice close up of three Nuances:

 

Behind the cowl blisters, dimples to the left of the rightmost guy's knee, and on the roundel

 

And look at this wing root.  Not only the chipping...   but the dimpling!  It's like you can see every step taken by the ground crew and pilot.

 

How many other mini-archives like this 65 Squadron Flicker site exist out in internet land?  I wonder how many useful, high quality WWII Aircraft pictures exist out there that most of us have never seen.  Even on the tail plane, there are slight deformations brought out by the angle of the light.

 

And what's up with those wheel bulges?  I presume they are wheel bulges.  I can't say that I have ever seen them before.

 

When you have an air force that uses only a few patterns and colors for long periods of time, it is subtle nuances that can make your model stand out from the crowd.   If I could only find pics like this of 109's!

[thierry laurent]

Indeed, these were the LG bulges. Actually few pictures correctly show them. Adding small bumps in the surface is unfortunately very difficult to reproduce.