Aircraft camo: What's the purpose?

QUOTE: Originally posted by VAPGULFVET The camo schemes visually break up the shape of the aircraft they're painted on. So by painting camo schemes or zig zags (As in case of some ships) the shape is visually broken up and may possibly conseal the enemy. Also remember radar was not widely used in WW II so relying on visual id was important !

Those zigzags were actually used on battleships and destroyers as well. Prior to WWII the use of radar was rare and much was dependent upon sight. Some planes were experimentally painted in disruptive camouflage in mid-1940. This disruptve camoflage seemed to work at sea level since it threw off depth perception, however these designs were evaluated under operational conditions for aircraft employed at sea and test showed that pattern camouflage was of little if any use for Navy combat aircraft. The camouflage schemes were designed by the noted artist and Naval Reserve officer McClelland Barclay.

Still, I bet these would make for a cool paint job... hmmm... Idea brewing for a project... I do have a Devastator in my stash.

A Brewster F2A Buffalo and a Douglas TBD-1 "Devastator" in disruptive camouflage [img=right]http://www.ryanahern.net/Files/Pics/h96164t.jpg[/img=right]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dannyandre In WWII, or so I'm told, late war B-17s, P-51s, P-47s were left aluminum because the allies had air supremecy. 'Zat true, anyone?

Partially; also (and this is from the Discovery Channel) the aluminum ones were more difficult to see in the winter with snow on the ground and very light monotones everywhere on overcast days than the OD ones. Some of the OD ones were actually stripped of their OD paint because of this.

In WWII, or so I'm told, late war B-17s, P-51s, P-47s were left aluminum because the allies had air supremecy. 'Zat true, anyone?

The camo schemes visually break up the shape of the aircraft they're painted on. So by painting camo schemes or zig zags (As in case of some ships) the shape is visually broken up and may possibly conseal the enemy. Also remember radar was not widely used in WW II so relying on visual id was important !

I think most people would agree that in air-air combat, the pilot who sees his enemy first is starting at a huge advantage. Adolph Galland in his book "The first and the last" spoke very highly of the RAF green/brown camo.

While stationed in Europe in the mid to late 70s the USAF and USA went to a tone down policy for their installations. Buildings roadways and acft taxiways/runways were included. It is very effective. If you can make something disruptive or blend just the slightest you have negated that element of surprise. If the attacking foe cannot pick out details on that all important first pass then he is liable to be in the cross hairs on the second pass. Enough said!

Roger that! I logged a lot of hours while I was in the AF and doing civilian flying, and the camo jobs do help, coupled with the suns effect in your eyes, and clouds, the camo paint can be a lifesaver!

Consider the SEA schemes since I was stationed there during the VN war...When your scooting along about .8- 1.5 mach over the green triple canopy jungles with a possible MIG over you about 2-5 thousand feet, that camo paint can be elusive to a would be attacking MIG...Don't forget also that in a war time situation, you can use every advantage at your disposal, and camo paint was just one of those benefits of the times!
Besides that, it looked good, <grin>! If you were basic early 60's late 50's shiney metal, in SEA you were a sitting duck!

R. Bell
USAF 71-77
Southeast Asia 73-74

When the emphasis changed from low level to medium level, most airforces changed their colour schemes from green/brown type schemes (ie SEA scheme) to greys. Look at the RAF, all their Harriers were painted Green and grey, later all over green, but now they are all over grey. Same with the Tornados.

If you sat there today with a bare metal aircraft heat seeking missiles would eat you alive due to the heat signature your aircraft would be producing so you have to think about that.

Maybe you weren't supposed to mention light camouflage...
Perhaps they did in fact test such a concept and just don't talk about it much. I know I read an "Aviation Leak" article on daytime stealth where they were changing the color of B-2s to allow them to fly during the day. They said they did a test with an F-15 and F-16 flying several miles appart (I think it was something like 15 miles) and the B-2 flew right between them in the middle of the day and the fighters had no idea it was there! Pretty cool stuff if you ask me.

QUOTE: Originally posted by John P QUOTE: Originally posted by maddafinga The newest thinking on air cammo is to have panels that light up to the exact ambient light in the sky. A plane with this is nearly invisible, There is a new experimental plane called the bird of prey, I think it's Lockheed that's making it, that has this feature. This should make the plane nearly invisible to see for a while in the air. The Boeing BoP is a stealth testbed, painted gray. It doesn't have any lights like you mention on it. I've seen that particular trick demonstrated on ground vehicles, but nobody's ever tried putting lights all over the outside of an airplane, it'd add too much weight and destroy the aerodynamics. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021018m.html

Thanks for the link. Where did I get that idea then. I was thinking they discussed it in one of the promo vids for the BoP, but I guess I was wrong. I did see something recently talking about body panels on the plane that illuminated, not actual lights, so they didn't affect flight characteristics. Now I have to wonder where I saw that. Thanks again John

tiger meet? how do they work/ dont work

Well, I must say that after reading over all this, I'm convinced. I just never really sat down and talked to someone about this.

Thanks.
Dana F

Hello Dana:
After reading all these other replies I forgot what the original question was, but I think Caine answered it well: that multi-colour camo is to break up the outline of the aircraft. If the other guy has to search to find you, and then pause to figure out how your aircraft is oriented, then he's probably going to have a bad day.

That is why the CAF paints a false canopy on the bottom of their F/A-18's.

BTW: The only silly questions are those that are unasked.
Happy new Year,
Bruce

As far as camouflage paint jobs go, the intent is to make them invisible while MOVING through the air, not sitting on the ground. There are camouflage nets for that purpose. I have seen many pictures of a FAST-moving, camouflaged aircraft taken from overhead, and you had to be sharp to see the aircraft against the background. And that's with a still picture; image trying to see that same plane while flying in another aircraft, and you only have seconds to spot AND identify the aircraft. Of course, if a Navy blue aircraft is over the desert, then the camouflage doesn't work so well. Same goes for desert camouflage over the ocean. But, camouflage DOES work. If you wanted the camouflage to work while sitting on the ground, you'd have to paint hangar doors and trees on the planes.

what about those glasses coatings?

QUOTE: Originally posted by unnamedplayer and cant they just use dullcote on the canopy to make it not reflect light? instead it absorbs light...

It is an interesting idea...but just try it on one of your models an you will quickly see why they don't use flat coats on canopies. The reason a flat coat looks "flat" is that it scatters the light very evenly and that is exactly opposite what you want in optics. If you put flat coats on the canopies the pilot could only see the hazy outlines of object instead of having clear vision....not advisible!

Also as someone mentioned about the missile color schemes, most modern missiles are painted in greys. The air-to-air missiles are painted to match the low-vis color schemes of todays aircraft and bombs, of course, are usually olive drab.

QUOTE: Originally posted by maddafinga The newest thinking on air cammo is to have panels that light up to the exact ambient light in the sky. A plane with this is nearly invisible, There is a new experimental plane called the bird of prey, I think it's Lockheed that's making it, that has this feature. This should make the plane nearly invisible to see for a while in the air.

The Boeing BoP is a stealth testbed, painted gray. It doesn't have any lights like you mention on it. I've seen that particular trick demonstrated on ground vehicles, but nobody's ever tried putting lights all over the outside of an airplane, it'd add too much weight and destroy the aerodynamics.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021018m.html

Hey Shrikes;
well the AGM-64's I was around in Iraq where dark grey ( Gunship Grey ) or med-green we never had the old white ones there and if there where the Ammo troops painted them to offset the colors so they where not so reflective

The newest thinking on air cammo is to have panels that light up to the exact ambient light in the sky. A plane with this is nearly invisible, There is a new experimental plane called the bird of prey, I think it's Lockheed that's making it, that has this feature. This should make the plane nearly invisible to see for a while in the air.

I don't guess that it really matters though, as we have awacs and very long range radar and missiles, most hostile pilots wouldn't get the opportunity to see the cammo on the plane that shot them down anyway, it would still be 60 miles away.

hello gentlemen,
right were to start, low vis greys, the idea behind this colour is to confuse the eye for a few seconds, in a dogfight that is the diference between life and death, they were not meant to be looked at for a long period, no matter what colour, if you look long enough you will see it.
ground camouflage, originaly this was to hide the aircraft from sight, either from above or on the ground, remember they used to disperes aircraft in trees.
if you are flying low level, the same applys as said about the greys, remember it is all about split second timing.
as for the A10, when they were stationed in the UK, there was not a better sight than to watch two A10's playing low level, and i mean low level, or to go to Donna Nook bombing range to watch them perform. fantastic

john
Air Warfare Forum

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bones-coa My favorite happens to be the A-10 lizard job...or even better, the A-10 Peanut job.

The way I see it the color of an A-10 is inconsequential, because by the time you see that plane it is already too late for you. Especially those poor guys in tanks. Those 30mm depleted uranium rounds show no mercy to armor.

Mike

what about tigermeet?

and cant they just use dullcote on the canopy to make it not reflect light? instead it absorbs light...

Okay, i'm probably just being silly, but what's the point of hinding the aircraft when you still see a trio of white AGM-65 Mavericks flying in close formation... what i mean is if they spent all that money on paint for the aircraft camo, why not camo the weapon stores as well?

Hey Bones;
Well Low Vis camo scheme of the greys was for the airplane at alitude because of the whiteness of the air and the blue sky the best way to HIDE something is to color it grey and because the human eye can only distingush a limited number of shades of grey it basicly hide the plane very well, and most Air Forces (even the Navys) went this color, the US Navy did a major research into the best pain schemes for their plane when they wanted to change from the Gull Grey & Gloss White scheme to low vis and they pretty much set the standard for the colors, but I know the low vis is very boring but it's the best way to hide your plane from the ground pounders & other pilots who want to shoot you down, also here's something I just read in the AF Time that the USAF is thinking about changing the paint scheme of the F-117's Flat Black to the grey's

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bones-coa I can understand the low viz schemes...the multi-colored camoes I still don't quite understand.

Maybe we have hit on this point a bit much as you have already seen the Bf-109 pic...which is pretty cool, I haven't seen that one before. As for why to use multi-colored schemes, it is mostly to break up the image of the aricraft similar to the way camos work on infantry uniforms. The idea is to hide the hard edges that the eye easily recognizes. The human eye could more easily pick up say, the dark outline of an F-4 agains the varius colors of the jungle below, but if the outline of the aircraft didn't quite look as solid, it would be harder to locate. The more irregular the shape, the harder it will be to pick out.

It is pretty clear why some paint schemes use a lighter color for the bottom of the aircraft, to make it blend better with the bright sky. However, as you noted the A-10 was usually painted with a dark woodland camo on the bottom as well. I think that probably had to do with its intended operating environment. The A-10 was expected to fly low level through the hill and mountains of Europe. That would place the aircraft below the mountain tops and possibly below ground observers and if the airplane were to be banking and turning in the mountains, a white (or grey) underside would likely stand out against the hillsides. SO instead they paint the bottom green and when the plane banks it is still hard to see against the forest. Of course the tactics have changed since then and some A-10s are in the grey paint scheme. Now that tactics have been using hte A-10 at higher altitudes and diving attacks in the open desert (no point in using open ground for cover) the grey helps blend into the sky better.

Well, I guess that is probably more than you needed to know, but I'm done now

Wow...ok, nmayhew...that is pretty amazing! I'll give it that!

I don't want anyone to think that I believe it doesn't work at all, it just seems like most isn't required. I'll also agree that some look real cool and, in fact, I prefer modeling camo aircraft over any others. My favorite happens to be the A-10 lizard job...or even better, the A-10 Peanut job.

Dana F

multi-colored schemes help hide the outline of the plane. Even if seen, it may not look like a plane.

Conversely, the unpainted planes in WWII were meant to get the attention of the enemy! Paint can add several hundred pounds to an airplane, so taking off the paint helped with performance as well. I read a quote from a WWII U.S. fighter pilot where he stated that they wanted their planes shiny and colorful because they wanted the Germans to come up and take them on.

On the flip side, look at this review of a recon version of the P-38 and read about the efforts they went through to camoflauge the plane: http://m2reviews.cnsi.net/scotts/allies/us/f4a.htm

Regards,

-Drew