The shiny all-new paint and bull thread...

[JDK]

OK, part of the reason for WIXs existance is so we can discuss and learn about warbirds, yes?

In an effort to detach a couple of I hope interesting and useful discussions about paint and warbirds, I've just undertaken a mass of cutting and pasting to get the following together and out from the other threads where it seemed they might be getting hijacked. Phew.

For the record, I'm not 'hot' about any of this, I just don't like bull or disinformation. (but I'll certainly get hot if the thread disappears, after all this work! ) More importantly, the discussion has already thrown up many of the same old clichés, myths and some excellent points by various people.

As ever, I don't see this about camps or rights and wrongs, but getting to some understanding and conclusions. I'd certainly hope that we can keep it civil, and with luck, there should be some actually useful results from the discussion. With that ramble, let's lead off with a recap. [In last week's Soap...]

In another thread (here: http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=16191 ), Mike said:

The 2 P-47s were 'Hun Hunter' and 'Wicked Wabbit' - same squadron, same badge on the cowl, different names. Both stunning restorations, and they looked straight out of 1944-45', unlike many of the glossy, chromed, polished and generally pimped P-51s present ('Princess Elizabeth' and 'Twilight Tear' excepted) - sorry if I've offended any of the owners of any such P-51s, but that is my over-riding impression more than anything else of the whole weekend. Why go to all the trouble of restoring the aircraft down to the last stencil, decal and 50 cal bullet link, only to lose the whole 'look' of the 1944-45 period by shining the thing up like a Learjet?

Why go to all the trouble of restoring the aircraft down to the last stencil, decal and 50 cal bullet link, only to lose the whole 'look' of the 1944-45 period by shining the thing up like a Learjet?

Because it stays that way forever. It's much easier to maintain. Flat paint basically has talcum powder in it. It soaks up everything and has to be repainted every year, at least, due to fading. You can't really get a good paint job unless you take it completly apart and strip it. An annual inspection could take 6 months to get it looking right again.
As a Korean painter once told me. "That ugry. Rich man no like ugry."

I added, in haste:

Cracking photos there...

Why go to all the trouble of restoring the aircraft down to the last stencil, decal and 50 cal bullet link, only to lose the whole 'look' of the 1944-45 period by shining the thing up like a Learjet?

Because it stays that way forever. It's much easier to maintain. Flat paint basically has talcum powder in it. It soaks up everything and has to be repainted every year, at least, due to fading. You can't really get a good paint job unless you take it completly apart and strip it. An annual inspection could take 6 months to get it looking right again.

(With respect) Not true, as shown by numerous warbird schemes that are matt or semi-matt, and successful. IMHO, it's just an excuse for the 'gloss' or 'polished' guys. And having had Kermit Weeks (very nicely) ask me not to touch 'Ina' because of the fingerprints - who's got the work?

(Let's not even go near the polish instead of paint, or paint instead of metal on Mustangs.)

If you buy a Mustang and want an easy life...

As a Korean painter once told me. "That ugry. Rich man no like ugry."

Now that's true. Rich man like bling. Rich men like 'new looking'... Rich men certainly don't like their toys looking 'pre-loved' and second-hand from Uncle Sam.

CAPFlyer came back with:

I'm sorry, but I have to say something on this. I'm frustrated with the statements about how planes had a matte finish or that the metal didn't shine really high in the military. My Great Uncle, an Air Force pilot in WWII and Korea has an aircraft on display in Georgia and his best friend's airplane is on display at the NMUSAF. Both aircraft were restored in part using photos he took of the airplanes just after arriving in theater (i.e. brand new). Both aircraft had a very shiny finish - one a fully painted transport, one a metal fighter with painted stripes. Part of this reason is because it was painted with ENAMEL paint. Enamel paints only come in one finish - gloss. Any "matte" finishes are not pure enamels, they are hybrids. The reason so many pictures look flat is because of wear, not because that's how they were painted. Take a look at pictures of the CAF R4D-6 "Ready4Duty" back when she was originally painted back in the late 1980s. Then look at her now. She originally had a GLOSS finish because they used the exact same enamel paints that were used in the late 40s. That finish is now "matte" or "flat" because of weathering, not because that's the finish. The only reason they got dull was because they didn't have any clear coating to protect that finish. There is nothing unauthentic about owners then using the same colors and paints that originally adorned their aircraft, even if they do maintain the finish to a level that wasn't always maintained in the field. Dull finishes didn't become the "norm" for military paint schemes until after Vietnam. Even the Skyraiders and Invaders had a glossy paint scheme. The only airplanes that were regularly painted with a "flat" finish were night fighters.

And:

And having had Kermit Weeks (very nicely) ask me not to touch 'Ina' because of the fingerprints - who's got the work?

Oh, so the fact that human oils corrode [metal] and stain most paints doesn't have anything to do with trying to maintain a complete finish on the aircraft?

Sorry, but the reason they ask you not to touch the paint due to fingerprints is true. Try looking at a plane that's had hands all over it and see where the paint is much more worn where the hands have been than where they haven't. It's mostly due to the oils on them than anything else. It's true of flat and gloss finishes, that's why it's not advisable to touch ANY paint with an unprotected hand.

I frankly don't blame them. When you're dishing out $60K for a paint job (or more), I think it's perfectly reasonable to protect that investment.

We then had:

The biggest reason Kermit said that is not because of the paint....It's because there is no paint to speak of except the trim. Ina is polished metal and anyone that has ever spent time polishing out aluminum can tell you that it starts oxidizing fast from fingerprints anf water spots. The only thing I polish on my plane is the spinner but it takes about 30 minutes a month. I'd hate to think what Ina takes to keep her looking as good as she does.

With Mike's response:

Yes, but they're flyable aeroplanes, not priceless Renaissance paintings.

They fly through the air at several hundred miles an hour, sometimes through rain, have hot, noxious exhaust gasses pass over the skin, fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid and coolant spilled on them, people walking on them and dust blown onto them on airport ramps.

I found this notice, stuck all over 'Quick Silver' at GML, to be a very refreshing change.........

(A great idea, and let's just leave aside the question encouraging the public to touch a live prop...)

OK, onto the discussion. I'll try to respond to some of the points, and as ever, let's see where we go.

[JDK]

...My Great Uncle, an Air Force pilot in WWII and Korea has an aircraft on display in Georgia and his best friend's airplane is on display at the NMUSAF. Both aircraft were restored in part using photos he took of the airplanes just after arriving in theater (i.e. brand new). Both aircraft had a very shiny finish - one a fully painted transport, one a metal fighter with painted stripes....

Certainly a factory fresh Mustang was shiny, and dulled in service. But no Mustang was rolled out or arrived in the Pacific or Europe in the polished schemes some current Mustangs are in. This isn't hair splitting. Photos of 'Princess Elizabeth' against 'Ina the Macon Belle' clearly show what a big difference this is. Personally, I do like the Ina scheme, but 'authentic' it 'aint.

Part of this reason is because it was painted with ENAMEL paint. Enamel paints only come in one finish - gloss. Any "matte" finishes are not pure enamels, they are hybrids. The reason so many pictures look flat is because of wear, not because that's how they were painted.

No, no, no. For a start British and Commonwealth, Japanese German and American paint procedures and finishes were all very different; we simply can't say any othem was like any other, with any degree of accuracy. Sticking to US types, I simply don't but the 'it was gloss when new' argument, and I'm afraid the recent book I have to hand on W.W.II US aircraft production doesn't support CAPFlyer's statement either. Sorry.

The nature of how a paint in made is important un understanding, but talking about 'hybrids' as though that's a sub-quality choice is just a red herring.

Take a look at pictures of the CAF R4D-6 "Ready4Duty" back when she was originally painted back in the late 1980s. Then look at her now. She originally had a GLOSS finish because they used the exact same enamel paints that were used in the late 40s. That finish is now "matte" or "flat" because of weathering, not because that's the finish.

The nature of twenty years modern use and three months (say) intense W.W.II use makes this comparason pretty irrelevent, although it's a good point.

Dull finishes didn't become the "norm" for military paint schemes until after Vietnam.

Again, that's a pretty sweeping generalisation, and I suspect (post war US types not being my speciality) riddled with exceptions. As to the change-by-wear in a peacetime air force - if would be kept matt or gloss as appropriate...

Anyone able to come up with chapter and verse here?

[JDK]

And having had Kermit Weeks (very nicely) ask me not to touch 'Ina' because of the fingerprints - who's got the work?

Oh, so the fact that human oils corrode [metal] and stain most paints doesn't have anything to do with trying to maintain a complete finish on the aircraft?

Sorry, but the reason they ask you not to touch the paint due to fingerprints is true. Try looking at a plane that's had hands all over it and see where the paint is much more worn where the hands have been than where they haven't. It's mostly due to the oils on them than anything else. It's true of flat and gloss finishes, that's why it's not advisable to touch ANY paint with an unprotected hand.

Sure, I know all that, having worked in a museum, there's a reason we use cotton gloves. My point, which was missed, was to knock on the head the claim that an over-polished scheme 'saves cleaning effort and help with managing wear' - quite the opposite.

[JDK]

Why go to all the trouble of restoring the aircraft down to the last stencil, decal and 50 cal bullet link, only to lose the whole 'look' of the 1944-45 period by shining the thing up like a Learjet?

Because it stays that way forever. It's much easier to maintain. Flat paint basically has talcum powder in it. It soaks up everything and has to be repainted every year, at least, due to fading. You can't really get a good paint job unless you take it completly apart and strip it. An annual inspection could take 6 months to get it looking right again.

Oh, c'mon. We aren't dealing with a Mom and Pop family hanging over the fence here FG1D, easy to wow with a few quick outdated semi-'facts'. This is a warbird forum, with highly knowledgeable and informed people who do know a bit more than that.

I'm no expert, but there's hundreds of satin and flat warbirds out there, and they've certainly not been 're-talced' each year. The premier example would perhaps have been the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight which went from a high gloss scheme to semi-matt in the early 1990s.

Certainly if you want to minimise cleaning a high gloss finish has advantages, but the days of the paint problems you refer to are gone - sounds like some need to update their knowledge!

Anyone responsible for any of the great schemes out there care to chime in?

[JDK]

If you want to polish your Mustang with jeweller's techniques, of course you are welcome.

If you decide that chrome's just the thing, go ahead.

Just don't pretend it's anything but a desire for shiny toys.

Kermit Week's Seversky P-35 is going to be amazing when it's done, but no USAAC guys polished any aircraft like Kermit's team. It will be truly 'beautiful' but it's won't be 'authentic'.

[daveymac82c]

I wish I could chime in with some relevant comments on this topic, but to be honest, I don't know enough about the topic.

One thing that's kind of got me thinking though, is the CMF's Tigermoth has a relatively glossy finish in BCATP yellow. I get the feeling it wasn't originally glossy in the 1940's, but I could be wrong.

As for the shinyness of some polished aluminum airplanes... I hate to say it, but I like shiny airplanes. There's something quite nice about them. Maybe it's because I can understand the work needed to get them that way. In the Air Cadets I used to polish my parade boots every week. At the CMF my friends and I took on the re-polishing of our C-45 Expeditor. It was weathered from about 15 years of outdoor storage, and is still outdoors, but we managed to shine it up really nice. It went from a matte aluminum finish to a shiny aluminum finish. As the years pass from when we shined it, it's gotten dull again. We really need a bigger roof at the CMF.

Cheers,

David

[mustangdriver]

I think that there is something to be said for both. I love the acurate paint schemes, but I also love the shiny finishes as well. I love the Weeks red tail P-51. I think it is among the most beautifully restored Mustangs out there. I really don't like to see the aircraft all covered in oil and faded paint. It is the same thing as taking a restored classic car to a car show, and not washing it first saying that in the 50's cars used to be dirty. Glossy paint is wrong I know, but it doesn't bother me either.

[daveymac82c]

Good point Mustangdriver.

-David

[airnutz]

Kermit Week's Seversky P-35 is going to be amazing when it's done, but no USAAC guys polished any aircraft like Kermit's team.

Dangerous statement there Mr. Tweed. Stating an absolute 'round here pahdnuh, may trigger a flurry Major or General's polished hacks...but proceed anyway, sir..always room for more photos.

[JDK]

Dangerous statement there Mr. Tweed. Stating an absolute 'round here pahdnuh, may trigger a flurry Major or General's polished hacks...but proceed anyway, sir..always room for more photos.

I duck good, only bettered by my run... I'd bet though we won't see any evidence of a pre-1941 USAAC aircraft you can see your face in.

Sure, I too like a shiny aircraft - sometimes. But as long as we see it for the temporary or marginal fashion that it is, rather than claiming it's 'authentic' it's fine.

In historic car circuits 'patina' is something that holds great cachet in the UK, and I understand not so in the US. To stretch a point a looong way, this may be one of the fundamental differences between the nations; in Britain an aspiration is to the old, landed gentry and their worn accoutrements, where I understand the American dream is always brand new - or needs to look it...

[EDowning]

All I have to say about these paint threads is, you haven't seen anything until you buy a SPAD WITH POLKA DOTS on it. I spend about half my airshow time answering questions about that. It wears my ass out, because the topic is so old to me. The airplane is in an exact, authentic scheme, the GLOSSY Sea Blue is even the Sterling brand that was MILSPEC when the Marines used it. I'm thinking of replacing each dot with a different Emoticon to give people something legitimate to bitch about.

[JDK]

All I have to say about these paint threads is, you haven't seen anything until you buy a SPAD WITH POLKA DOTS on it. I spend about half my airshow time answering questions about that. It wears my ass out, because the topic is so old to me.

It's tough flying polka dots.

It's a greats scheme, and hey, it's old to you, but it's a "Gee I never knew that" to each airshowgoer who asks. We live & learn. (well, some of us do.)

[snj-5]

How does that saying go? Never say never...

Here's a a highly polished SNJ-5 that was the personal mount
of a Rear Admiral (probably the CO of Mustin Field). I recall reading
somewhere that there were numerous "top brass" airplanes that were
maintained to a high and/or polished standard.

Info from Bill Larkins on the Yahoo T-6 group says these were called
"Flagplanes" before WWII. There were apparently numerous examples
around at the time

http://www.havasreti.com/images/BuNo90726.jpg

Bela P. Havasreti

Last edited by snj-5 on Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

[JDK]

How does that saying go? Never say never...

Thanks (I think) Bella!

Wanna bet it wasn't polished with jeweller's rouge?

(I should know when to quit.)

[Vulture]

You know, I hate to be the one that throws a blanket on a hot conversation, but I am kinda wondering if the paint,( that is removable btw...) is of any real concern in the end. I am just happy and appreciate that aircraft like these are flying.

Dont get me wrong, I am sure for those that are sticklers for historical accuracy will want an aircraft painted in XYZ paint, but if you want to get picky... would the authenticity not require the paint to be applied in the same fashion as in 1940s to call it authentic>? ( I am assuming there was a different application method)

The other question I would ask is what is the purpose of paint? To protect from the elements or to look pretty? if you said (d) all of the above, I would think you would be correct. Whereas the paint is representative of the day, but is effective at protecting the aircraft from the elements.