|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Jul 2, 2013 22:57:05 GMT 12
Not sure where to post this.
Does anyone know what the shiny material they used on the WWII aircraft was? I have seen a B-17, P-51 and a B-25 with this.I think it could be aluminium, but not sure how they got it so shiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by raymond on Jul 2, 2013 23:31:50 GMT 12
Not sure where to post this. Does anyone know what the shiny material they used on the WWII aircraft was? I have seen a B-17, P-51 and a B-25 with this.I think it could be aluminium, but not sure how they got it so shiny. Polished Aluminium! there are a couple of polished units in the link below www.hangar-7.com/en/the-flying-bulls/aircraft/ |
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Jul 2, 2013 23:37:26 GMT 12
Thought it might be polished but some are really shiny and wasn't sure if it was polished or had a slight touch of chrome.
Wow! didn't know Red Bull had a whole fleet.Not a big fan of the way they over kill it with the Red Bull stuff on the planes, looks tacky.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jul 3, 2013 8:28:47 GMT 12
I've read in WW2 they used to mop down the unpainted aluminium B 17's with aviation fuel to keep them shiny.
Probably wouldn't get past health & safety these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jul 3, 2013 12:54:12 GMT 12
Pretty well all wartime all-metal American aircraft were constructed with aluminium alloys, with one of main materials being known as "Alclad", which were actually duralium sheets with a thin coating of pure aluminium deposited on the outer surfaces. This was purely a pragamatic approach, as duralium (an aluminium alloy) was rather more prone to corrosion than pure aluminium. I don't think that many aircraft would have been deliberately polished (as this took time and effort, and only made the aircraft more visible at a greater distance if the sun was shining on them) and most would have oxidized slightly in service over time. Then there would have been the effects of errosion by heavy rain, coral dust, etc, with servicing personell adding their fair share of scratches and scrapes during re-arming, refuelling and inspections; sitting outside in all weathers for their entire working lives in frontline service would have dulled them down too. However many members of the warbird movement polish their prize possessions up to the nth degree for the purposes of exhibition, airshows, etc, but such care would NOT have been lavished on your average frontline bomber or fighter, even if the commanding general was coming to inspect them; probably most of their energies went into raising money to pay an artist to paint on pin-up girls or cartoons, especially on B-29s, B-24s, etc. I think it was in late 1943 or early 1944 before the USAAF decided to complete most of their operational aircraft types in bare metal finish rather than the previous painted finish, but for some obscure reason, Douglas C-47s (Sktrain, or DC-3/Dakota to others) were delivered to the USAAF until VJ-day in overall olive drab and neutral grey, including those diverted to the RNZAF. However our P-51s were delivered in bare matal with aluminium-painted wings. Navy aircraft were generally all delivered in overall painted finishes, but there were exceptions.
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jul 3, 2013 14:59:33 GMT 12
Regardless of my first post, these USAAF aircraft could still appear to be very shiny indeed in service, particularly on vertical surfaces or undersurfaces not so subject to "fair wear and tear". Aluminium sheeting can be very smooth and bright, no doubt about that, just like a good mirror.
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Jul 3, 2013 18:52:55 GMT 12
I've read in WW2 they used to mop down the unpainted aluminium B 17's with aviation fuel to keep them shiny. Probably wouldn't get past health & safety these days. I would think that doing that would make them incredibly sticky and they would be covered in dirt after a few missions. |
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Jul 3, 2013 19:03:44 GMT 12
Pretty well all wartime all-metal American aircraft were constructed with aluminium alloys, with one of main materials being known as "Alclad", which were actually duralium sheets with a thin coating of pure aluminium deposited on the outer surfaces. This was purely a pragamatic approach, as duralium (an aluminium alloy) was rather more prone to corrosion than pure aluminium. I don't think that many aircraft would have been deliberately polished (as this took time and effort, and only made the aircraft more visible at a greater distance if the sun was shining on them) and most would have oxidized slightly in service over time. Then there would have been the effects of errosion by heavy rain, coral dust, etc, with servicing personell adding their fair share of scratches and scrapes during re-arming, refuelling and inspections; sitting outside in all weathers for their entire working lives in frontline service would have dulled them down too. However many members of the warbird movement polish their prize possessions up to the nth degree for the purposes of exhibition, airshows, etc, but such care would NOT have been lavished on your average frontline bomber or fighter, even if the commanding general was coming to inspect them; probably most of their energies went into raising money to pay an artist to paint on pin-up girls or cartoons, especially on B-29s, B-24s, etc. I think it was in late 1943 or early 1944 before the USAAF decided to complete most of their operational aircraft types in bare metal finish rather than the previous painted finish, but for some obscure reason, Douglas C-47s (Sktrain, or DC-3/Dakota to others) were delivered to the USAAF until VJ-day in overall olive drab and neutral grey, including those diverted to the RNZAF. However our P-51s were delivered in bare matal with aluminium-painted wings. Navy aircraft were generally all delivered in overall painted finishes, but there were exceptions. David D Interesting stuff David. I read that adding paint would make the aircraft heavier, that's why they left them bare metal.I'm looking at getting a piece of aluminium (1m by 80cm), slightly bending it and adding rivets, as well as getting a pinup girl painted on it, I want to make it shiny. ''If they are brown, they are British. If they are silver, they are American. If you can't see them at all, they are German!'' |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 3, 2013 20:01:00 GMT 12
The RNZAF used aviation fuel to clean their painted aircraft too, to remove the coral dust and other crud that built up. If they didn't it became as dangerous as ice build up.
|
|
|
|
Post by chinapilot on Jul 3, 2013 20:05:01 GMT 12
Bare finish Pros...
Weight saving
Cost saving
Quicker production and delivery - no paint shop time
Small reduction in drag - greater range and/or payload (coupled with the weight reduction)
Cons...
Obviously glints in the sun and easily spotted on the ground but by that time it was considered that they had supremacy in the air and the bases were mostly safe from attack both in the ETO and the PTO.
|
|
|
|
Post by DragonflyDH90 on Jul 5, 2013 12:01:56 GMT 12
Avgas is a great airframe cleaner, a little on the dangerous side (and harmful to some finishes) but great none the less.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Jul 5, 2013 12:49:25 GMT 12
Avgas is a great airframe cleaner, a little on the dangerous side (and harmful to some finishes) but great none the less. We used to go into the bomb bay in the Air Force Museums Avenger where the drain for the centre fuel tank was. We drain off some fuel into an ice cream container so we could wash off all the oil off her sides (Usually extending from the exhausts aft to at least the wing trailing edge!)after a Sunday engine run. We had to stop doing that as the drops of fuel that would end up on the floor were causing issues to the floor(7 Hangar's floor was compacted earth I think? Sealed with something?) Not sure what we did, probably got onto to it as soon as the egine was shutdown and the oil was still warmish! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 5, 2013 13:18:18 GMT 12
No's 6 and 7 Hangars had compacted soil floors sealed with oil. That is what I was told when I worked in No. 6 Hangar anyway. The NATTS guys had a concrete pad in part of their end to take the weight of the Friendships.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jul 5, 2013 15:52:22 GMT 12
I always thought 7 hangar was a tar sealed floor which is oil based anyway and avgas would have an effect on that. I spent many hours drilltraining in there when I was doing my recruit course at GSTS and once when we had topractice for a funeral. An oil and dirt floor has a different colour and pretty sure 7 hangar had the bitumous dark grey colour.
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Jul 5, 2013 16:10:41 GMT 12
I am not sure 6 Hangar could be called tar sealed, the surface was good but not that good. There was a concrete pad for the F-27 but the rest was 'au naturel'.
We may end up compromising here and seeking the middle ground. I was under the impression it was compacted and oiled but the oil used may have been boiler oil or something resembling tar anyway. It had to be strong to last all those years and those floors must have seen all kinds of use. One of the last times I was in 6 Hangar it was playing host to dozens of big farm tractors.
We have used Avgas for years to clean the under bellies of aircraft but you do need to be wary of drips and the type of surface.
I can't comment on the polished Alclad surfaces. I can't ever recall working on such an aircraft. Then again I was always taught the various surface protective coating processes, all of which included primers and topcoats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 5, 2013 16:20:30 GMT 12
That's not how I recall it, I know No. 6 Hangar was definitely compacted soil and sealed with oil, but I am not certain about No. 7 Hangar. My memory is of it being the same, but it's been a long time.
For a long time I assumed No. 6 Hangar's floor was some sort of primitive tar seal till it was pointed out to me that it was compacted earth and you could actually push a knife or other sharp objects into it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 5, 2013 16:41:30 GMT 12
By the way my reply above was to Natimozart's post, not Baronbeeza's, who is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jul 5, 2013 16:44:07 GMT 12
You could be right. It's a long time ago and I never had cause to assume floor was anything else but. Also was more concerned with not getting yelled at by an over zealous GSI  Memory also plays tricks to. I never went into the main part of 6 hangar itself apart from the side annex by the road where if I remember correctly S & S and the cracker stackers were. On our recruit course we had to take a guy in a stretcher off the top of 7 hangar by rope. It was interesting and it wasn't me in the stretcher or on the roof so I was reasonably happy. Am not a great one on heights. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 5, 2013 17:10:45 GMT 12
In my time it was Safety and Surface in the eastern end of the annexes you speak of in No. 6 Hangar, and NATTS (and then the Museum when NATTS was shut down) in the western end, and the Armourers were in the middle annexes of No. 7 Hangar, with Camp Pack Up's office next and the Photographic Section at the western end.
When we did that stretcher exercise at GSTS Woodbourne it was on the dedicated training tower there, which wasn't around in your time. Amazing view from up there. A few days later our groiup was doing it for real in the middle of the bush... Shows what good training does.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jul 5, 2013 20:18:34 GMT 12
Yes it certainly does and you don't forget a lot of it. I spent eight years in civvy st & then into navy reserves. Rifle drill came back real quick and how to use, strip and clean SLR etc. Interestingly we had to do a similar exercise with bod in a Robinson stretcher (folded right around victim) and move them horizontally and vertically through ship. I also did my navy basic with a guy I did my RNZAF recruit course with and we were in the same Reserve Division. Small world.
|
|
Memory also plays tricks to. I never went into the main part of 6 hangar itself apart from the side annex by the road where if I remember correctly S & S and the cracker stackers were. On our recruit course we had to take a guy in a stretcher off the top of 7 hangar by rope. It was interesting and it wasn't me in the stretcher or on the roof so I was reasonably happy. Am not a great one on heights.