Shiny restaurations?

[Dennis[_8_]]

Hi all,

I have been wondering about this for a long time.

Why are warbirds, which originally had a matt or dull paintjob (almost)
always very shiny when restored??

A lot of money and effort is put in to restore it to original and flying
condition and then they put on a non original gloss finish!
I can probably understand this for flying examples, glossy is easier to
keep clean,

But, I was watching a program on Discovery about breaking the sound barier.
And the original Bell X-1 was a matt orange and is now exhibited repainted
in a high gloss, though it will (probably) never fly again.

Any one?

TIA and cheers,

Dennis

[Claus Gustafsen]

Well I belive there are several answers to this,

1. Planes painted in dull colours weathet much faster than gloss paint.
Therefor owners may choose to use glosse paint in an otherwise faithfull
replication of a paint scheme. Easy enough for me to accept.
2. Gloss "Natural Metal Finish", I do belive that some of thes are honest
errors, seeing post war racers with putty and paint removed from the wings,
and polished to reduce friction, this gives the shiny look. Also the finish
in many owners eyes probably looks good and are easy to maintain.


--
Claus Gustafsen
Strandby

"Dennis" > skrev i meddelelsen
.12...
> Hi all,
>
> I have been wondering about this for a long time.
>
> Why are warbirds, which originally had a matt or dull paintjob (almost)
> always very shiny when restored??
>
> A lot of money and effort is put in to restore it to original and flying
> condition and then they put on a non original gloss finish!
> I can probably understand this for flying examples, glossy is easier to
> keep clean,
>
> But, I was watching a program on Discovery about breaking the sound
> barier.
> And the original Bell X-1 was a matt orange and is now exhibited repainted
> in a high gloss, though it will (probably) never fly again.
>
> Any one?
>
> TIA and cheers,
>
> Dennis

[Stealth Pilot[_3_]]

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:02:06 +0200, "Claus Gustafsen"
> wrote:

>Well I belive there are several answers to this,
>
>1. Planes painted in dull colours weathet much faster than gloss paint.
>Therefor owners may choose to use glosse paint in an otherwise faithfull
>replication of a paint scheme. Easy enough for me to accept.
>2. Gloss "Natural Metal Finish", I do belive that some of thes are honest
>errors, seeing post war racers with putty and paint removed from the wings,
>and polished to reduce friction, this gives the shiny look. Also the finish
>in many owners eyes probably looks good and are easy to maintain.

matt paints are porous and dont protect as well.

the standard response to this nonsense question is always that you can
paint the aircraft you own in any colour scheme you wish. so why dont
you go and do it. (btw claus didnt ask the question)

Stealth Pilot

[Richard Brooks[_2_]]

Stealth Pilot said the following on 10/10/2009 18:44:

> matt paints are porous and dont protect as well.
>
> the standard response to this nonsense question is always that you can
> paint the aircraft you own in any colour scheme you wish. so why dont
> you go and do it. (btw claus didnt ask the question)
>
> Stealth Pilot
>

Also, if you are at war you don't want your aircraft glinting nicely
in the night sky over enemy territory, moonlight or by searchlight.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Richard Brooks wrote:
>
> Also, if you are at war you don't want your aircraft glinting nicely
> in the night sky over enemy territory, moonlight or by searchlight.
>

Even unpolished bare aluminum can glint.

[Dennis[_8_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:02:06 +0200, "Claus Gustafsen"
> > wrote:
>
>>Well I belive there are several answers to this,
>>
>>1. Planes painted in dull colours weathet much faster than gloss
>>paint. Therefor owners may choose to use glosse paint in an otherwise
>>faithfull replication of a paint scheme. Easy enough for me to accept.
>>2. Gloss "Natural Metal Finish", I do belive that some of thes are
>>honest errors, seeing post war racers with putty and paint removed
>>from the wings, and polished to reduce friction, this gives the shiny
>>look. Also the finish in many owners eyes probably looks good and are
>>easy to maintain.
>
> matt paints are porous and dont protect as well.
>
> the standard response to this nonsense question is always that you can
> paint the aircraft you own in any colour scheme you wish. so why dont
> you go and do it. (btw claus didnt ask the question)
>
> Stealth Pilot
>

I asked the question and I don't think it is a nonsense question.

Very true; you are totally allowed to paint your stuff any colour you
want.
But I just don't understand why, after that much time, money, effort and
probably research one would end up with a thing that doesn't resemble
the original.
But it is indeed the choice of the owner.

But I've seen planes and armour in museums that are obviously been
resprayed/painted in non-original schemes and/or colours.

Nevertheless, I'm sorry I asked.

Cheers,

Dennis

[Richard Brooks[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll said the following on 10/10/2009 19:59:
> Richard Brooks wrote:
>> Also, if you are at war you don't want your aircraft glinting nicely
>> in the night sky over enemy territory, moonlight or by searchlight.
>>
>
> Even unpolished bare aluminum can glint.
>
>

I can't recall too many unpolished bare aluminium night camouflage
schemes.

An piece of a Do-217 (U5+MR) which I have which was later painted in
night camouflage, the black paint is as dull in texture as soot.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Richard Brooks > wrote:

> Stealth Pilot said the following on 10/10/2009 18:44:
>
> > matt paints are porous and dont protect as well.
> >
> > the standard response to this nonsense question is always that you can
> > paint the aircraft you own in any colour scheme you wish. so why dont
> > you go and do it. (btw claus didnt ask the question)
> >
> > Stealth Pilot
> >
>
> Also, if you are at war you don't want your aircraft glinting nicely
> in the night sky over enemy territory, moonlight or by searchlight.

Actually, tests during WW-II showed that GLOSSY black was harder to
detect than matte black and other colors. Hence the glossy black on US
night fighters and night bombers.

The B-29s used in night raids over Japan sported glossy black
undersides; the night B-26s used in Korea were also glossy black.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Richard Brooks wrote:
>
> I can't recall too many unpolished bare aluminium night camouflage
> schemes.
>

What can you recall?

[Richard Brooks[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll said the following on 11/10/2009 14:45:
> Richard Brooks wrote:
>> I can't recall too many unpolished bare aluminium night camouflage
>> schemes.
>>
>
> What can you recall?
>
>

Smoky black as you can and diffuse those searchlight beams. Don't
forget the carrots of course.

You'd probably do it much more different of course.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Richard Brooks wrote:
>>
>> What can you recall?
>>
>
> Smoky black as you can and diffuse those searchlight beams. Don't
> forget the carrots of course.
>

What you recall seems to differ from the record. A very shiny and smooth
gloss paint called Jet Black was developed for night camouflage. The Jet
Black finish was found to be "totally invisible in 80% of all passes made
through searchlights." The finish came to be known as "anti-searchlight
paint".

"Air Force Colors, Volume Two, ETO & MTO 1942-1945" by Dana Bell, page 47.


>
> You'd probably do it much more different of course.
>

Of course.

[Richard Brooks[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll said the following on 11/10/2009 22:13:
> Richard Brooks wrote:
>>> What can you recall?
>>>
>> Smoky black as you can and diffuse those searchlight beams. Don't
>> forget the carrots of course.
>>
>
> What you recall seems to differ from the record. A very shiny and smooth
> gloss paint called Jet Black was developed for night camouflage. The Jet
> Black finish was found to be "totally invisible in 80% of all passes made
> through searchlights." The finish came to be known as "anti-searchlight
> paint".
>
> "Air Force Colors, Volume Two, ETO & MTO 1942-1945" by Dana Bell, page 47.
>
>
>> You'd probably do it much more different of course.
>>
>
> Of course.
>

Yours I think! What colour is unpolished bare aluminium, again?

>Steven P. McNicoll said the following on 10/10/2009 19:59:
>>Even unpolished bare aluminum can glint.

Ahhh! Over here - Europe, the R.A.F. used something to DTD 308 Air
Ministry Standards with high carbon content.

[Waldo.Pepper[_2_]]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:27:27 +0200, Dennis > wrote:

>But I just don't understand why, after that much time, money, effort and
>probably research one would end up with a thing that doesn't resemble
>the original.
>But it is indeed the choice of the owner.


Glossy finishes have better fuel economy. I would uggest that it is an
economy measure on restored warbirds. You already spent enough
restoring it.

Others have mentioned glossy black for nighttime. The Americans during
the war did testing off the coast of Florida. During these tests they
settled on glossy finish.

Bare metal was chosen by the American's for a few reasons. Less weight
allowed high performance. Higher altitude, faster speed (due to less
weight) - better fuel economy as well.

Camoflage was traded off. Because the Americans would almost always
have numerical superirority the camoflage value of paint was virtually
nil.

The greater number of eyes in the larger formations would offer enough
warning to spot the smaller enemy formations.

Therefore, lose the paint. Which would give you negligible camoflage
and you get performance benefits.

Waldo.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Richard Brooks wrote:
>
> Yours I think! What colour is unpolished bare aluminium, again?
>

Silvery white.

>
> Ahhh! Over here - Europe, the R.A.F. used something to DTD 308 Air
> Ministry Standards with high carbon content.
>

Polished to resemble Jet Black.