Bare Metal Vs Painted Finish

Your Main Forum For Discussing 1:18 Scale Military Figures and Vehicles.
Post Reply
SpareParts
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: East Peoria IL

Bare Metal Vs Painted Finish

Post by SpareParts » Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:43 am

I know this may be common knowledge to most of you, but why do many planes have the bare metal finish? Camouflage is an obvious reason to have an aircraft painted. Keeping out of sight of an enemy has obvious advantages, I would reckon. So why are many aircraft bare metal? Seems like it makes them stick out like a sore thumb. I think US planes are the only ones to have done this.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

kimtheredxd
Officer - Captain
Officer - Captain
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:19 am
Location: WA State

Post by kimtheredxd » Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:21 am

the reason I was told was late in the war we had such air superiority that camouflage paint was not necessary any more(but i could be wrong there is a first for everything :wink: ) It made the planes lighter for one thing.Plus I think some pilots even had there fighters waxed to help with speed not sure if that's true or not though. The Navy kept there planes painted for camouflage reasons and to protect from the ocean environment.

nooker21
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Anaheim, CA

Post by nooker21 » Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:34 am

I heard it was a weight thing as well. If you think about it, paint adds hundreds of pounds to a plane, and reduces fuel effeciency. Why bother with it for the bombers and escort fighters thousands of feet up there?

Birddog
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Birddog » Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:20 pm

From what I've read it was a bit of both. :wink:

tmanthegreat
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 11239
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:38 pm
Location: Central California

Post by tmanthegreat » Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:08 pm

I've heard it was the weight thing as well. Think of how many extra pounds go into covering the surface of an aircraft with OD and Gray paint. Then it could also have been a production time (and cost) saving procedure - you don't have to spend those few extra minutes painting the aircraft when it gets off the assembly line.

User avatar
aferguson
Lieutenant General - MOD
Lieutenant General - MOD
Posts: 13676
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:08 am

Post by aferguson » Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:56 pm

weight, time, cost and drag. Flat paint causes drag compared to bare metal. So you end up with a faster, higher flying airplane, if you don't paint it. You really want to be sure of air superiority because, as stated, bare metal really stands out.

Of course some planes had a combination of bare metal and camo paint eg Lou IV, HHH etc, an effort to get the best of both worlds. In front of and behind the canopy was painted to protect the pilot's eyes from glare.

Interestingly many Japanese planes from mid-war on had bare metal finishes, usually with a camouflage mottle on the upper surfaces and sides. My understanding is that it was to speed up production and to save weight and drag to make the planes go a bit faster and fly higher in order to combat the superior US fighters they were encountering.

Post Reply