Gun Barrel Blackening....Fact or Crap?

Awesome, thanks Stik!

Yes, here is a shot of the same plane clean for comparison.

stikpusher

 

Manstein's revenge:

 

I've seen those pics too and most if not all seem to be taken (or are stated as such) right after a mission...on one I saw the pilot writing with his finger in the soot after he arrived back at base after a MiG kill...

 

 

This pic?

Whoa, Stik, awesome pic, thanks for that! By the looks of it, that blackening is aft of the gun ports right? That's exactly the kind of example I was looking for!

Manstein's revenge

I've seen those pics too and most if not all seem to be taken (or are stated as such) right after a mission...on one I saw the pilot writing with his finger in the soot after he arrived back at base after a MiG kill...

This pic?

great post seems the forum has done it job again i learned something new today.i too belive it over done on armor .

Ron

It depends on the weapon.I was in LAVs and our 25 mm chain guns and 30 cals would get carbon build-up on the end of the barrel.the same with 45's,9 mil's,m-16's SAW's M-60's and 50 cal's.When in the field you might do a light cleaning and run a rod down the barrel   The same with rust and paint chips. But back at base you cleaned,scrubbed,cleaned,scrubbed and then cleaned some more.    Rust on our vehicle was the same as rust on your M-16   (never met an officer who liked rust)And we were always touching up the paint to keep the rust away.So heavily  blackened barrels or rusty vehicles would be hard to find unless it was destroyed and abandoned.But it does look cool

bondoman

 

Hans von Hammer:

 

 

Oh yeah, another thing I thought of... Nightfighter guns with flash-hiders on the muzzles...  Like the P-38M, or the Mossie...  What say y'all to that 'un?    

This's a fun thread...

 

Well, remember to use light gray!LOL

 

Here's the best picture I could find, of a particular a/c I have pretty well documented.

What's really going on, is that there was a lot of time spent by "Dopie" paying attention to the ports and the ejector chutes, so there's a weird collection of residue all around those areas. Now that I'd like to see modeled...

BTW that Crew Chief in the cockpit running the bristols up...

"Guy on the left"

some people never change... one of my best friends

He was awarded two Bronze Stars in WW2 and spun lurid stories of death and destruction. I recently have been going through his estate in an effort to save it all, and found his first citation. In essence for bringing his Squadron to peak effectiveness through discipline, high maintenance standards and example of leadership.

The other one an incredible war story. But that was Don Nichols. He was born on a cold water farm, raised his siblings with his mother, and had a good life. All about service. I miss him terribly.

http://www.missionmortuary.com/sitemaker/sites/Missio1/obit.cgi?user=319330Nichols

Aaron Skinner

berny13:

Carbon from a gun will build up along the wings.  They would always be cleaned at the end of the flying day.  It was found that the carbon would cause corrosion and pitting on NMF aircraft.  Even when missiles, rockets, or a gun is fired, the crew chief will always clean the area around the weapon being fired.  The weapons troops would clean and lube the gun barrels at the end of the flying day.  The rocket launchers would be cleaned and lubed.  For a missile launcher the breach would be cleaned and in the case of a Sidewinder the launcher would be removed and cleaned in shop.  Rocket pods would be removed and cleaned in shop.  MER's, TER's and BRU's would be broken down and cleaned in shop. 

After a specified amount of rounds being fired from a gun, it would be removed and totally cleaned and inspected.  For the 20MM M-61A1 it was 100,000 rounds or one year which ever occured first.

No Crew Chief would ever allow carbon buildup to accumulate on his aircraft.  That would be the fastest way I know to have the line chief all over him.  He didn't want to spend the weekend on the wash rack washing aircraft for not keeping his jet clean.

 

Maybe it's the exception proving the rule, but I just picked up Osprey's book Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star Units Over Korea and it has a lot of color pix of natural-metal F-80s with heavy blackening around the muzzle openings in the nose. Actually, most of the aircraft pictured look like they've been rode hard and maintained enough to get them ready for the next mission. Very workmanlike.

Cheers, Aaron

Aaron Skinner

 

berny13:

 

Carbon from a gun will build up along the wings.  They would always be cleaned at the end of the flying day.  It was found that the carbon would cause corrosion and pitting on NMF aircraft.  Even when missiles, rockets, or a gun is fired, the crew chief will always clean the area around the weapon being fired.  The weapons troops would clean and lube the gun barrels at the end of the flying day.  The rocket launchers would be cleaned and lubed.  For a missile launcher the breach would be cleaned and in the case of a Sidewinder the launcher would be removed and cleaned in shop.  Rocket pods would be removed and cleaned in shop.  MER's, TER's and BRU's would be broken down and cleaned in shop. 

After a specified amount of rounds being fired from a gun, it would be removed and totally cleaned and inspected.  For the 20MM M-61A1 it was 100,000 rounds or one year which ever occured first.

No Crew Chief would ever allow carbon buildup to accumulate on his aircraft.  That would be the fastest way I know to have the line chief all over him.  He didn't want to spend the weekend on the wash rack washing aircraft for not keeping his jet clean.

 

 

Maybe it's the exception proving the rule, but I just picked up Osprey's book Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star Units Over Korea and it has a lot of color pix of natural-metal F-80s with heavy blackening around the muzzle openings in the nose. Actually, most of the aircraft pictured look like they've been rode hard and maintained enough to get them ready for the next mission. Very workmanlike.

Cheers, Aaron

I think its a matter of situation and environment. A peacetime airbase in the United States is a lot different from an airfield in Korea, is a lot different from the extremely primitive conditions on Henderson Field in 1942. Heck...conditions were extremely different even between an England-based airfield like Boxted and a FOB like Y-29 in Belgium in 1945. 

I'm sure in an ideal environment, keeping the aircraft clean and superbly maintained is the ultimate goal. I know crew chiefs take fantastic pride in their aircraft...BUT when push comes to shove, and your priority is getting the plane airworthy in two hours, or literally reloading and rearming, or you're operating on very lean supplies, things like cleaning the aircraft would obviously seem to take a back seat.

I think of it like Star Trek. Obviously Scotty loves a nice, clean, well-sorted Enterprise. But in the middle of a running battle with Khan is just not the time to have the yeomen out swabbing the decks or cleaning carbon buildup from around the phaser banks.

Cool to see people still posting to this thread. Jbrady, that is a good picture there, at least showing how the under sides of the wings would be blackened around the ejector ports...and perhaps even the gun holes.

Thanks for weighing in Aaron. It was my impression that planes with guns mounted in the nose, like the Shooting Star would have had blackening in that area because of the muzzles close proximity to the side of the aircraft. Similar to the A-4 photo I posted before. Good to know though because I always questioned whether or not blackening the gun ports on the F-86 I built was accurate or not.

So I would ask too, on planes that have guns mounted in the nose, why is there no blackening aft of the gun ports? Why would carbon build up on the wings of a P-51 but not on the fuselage behind the guns of an F-80?

berny13

Carbon from a gun will build up along the wings.  They would always be cleaned at the end of the flying day.  It was found that the carbon would cause corrosion and pitting on NMF aircraft.  Even when missiles, rockets, or a gun is fired, the crew chief will always clean the area around the weapon being fired.  The weapons troops would clean and lube the gun barrels at the end of the flying day.  The rocket launchers would be cleaned and lubed.  For a missile launcher the breach would be cleaned and in the case of a Sidewinder the launcher would be removed and cleaned in shop.  Rocket pods would be removed and cleaned in shop.  MER's, TER's and BRU's would be broken down and cleaned in shop. 

After a specified amount of rounds being fired from a gun, it would be removed and totally cleaned and inspected.  For the 20MM M-61A1 it was 100,000 rounds or one year which ever occured first.

No Crew Chief would ever allow carbon buildup to accumulate on his aircraft.  That would be the fastest way I know to have the line chief all over him.  He didn't want to spend the weekend on the wash rack washing aircraft for not keeping his jet clean.

Maybe it's the exception proving the rule, but I just picked up Osprey's book Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star Units Over Korea and it has a lot of color pix of natural-metal F-80s with heavy blackening around the muzzle openings in the nose. Actually, most of the aircraft pictured look like they've been rode hard and maintained enough to get them ready for the next mission. Very workmanlike.

Cheers, Aaron

Boba Fett

Yeah, but Navy guys are cleaning those things every half-hour...

You know I always thought that to be gospel truth... but like everything else there were exceptions... this is a CAG bird from August 43 BEFORE a mission.

Crap...

Hey Jon. I'm a Navy veteran and have seen many naval gun exercises conducted in my service years. Most of the gun muzzles had a black to grayish powder residue built up just around muzzle area. Normally gun clean up is done after the action is over with, but as others have commented in wartime with action around the clock clean up may not happen for awhile. So I hope this sates the curious,

Hans von Hammer

 

Oh yeah, another thing I thought of... Nightfighter guns with flash-hiders on the muzzles...  Like the P-38M, or the Mossie...  What say y'all to that 'un?    

This's a fun thread...

Here's the best picture I could find, of a particular a/c I have pretty well documented.

What's really going on, is that there was a lot of time spent by "Dopie" paying attention to the ports and the ejector chutes, so there's a weird collection of residue all around those areas. Now that I'd like to see modeled...

BTW that Crew Chief in the cockpit running the bristols up...

"Guy on the left"

some people never change... one of my best friends

No Crew Chief would ever allow carbon buildup to accumulate on his aircraft. 

That's gonna depend on the action/time one wants to convey, and whether it's a peacetime gun-run out at White Sands in 1988 or several consecutive days of intense fighting at Guadalcanal in 1942... If there's time between sorties, sure.. But if an aircraft was turnin' & burnin', getting only enough time between sorties to be refueled (if necessary) and rearmed before heading back out on another mission, that would wait until the end of the day...  For instance, the P-39/P-400s of the 67th Pursuit Sqn on Guadalcanal during the Battle of Bloody Ridge were turing around immediately, with several pilots (one was my uncle)  flying as many as eight or nine CAS missions in a single day..  Not hard to believe when the flight time from "wheels-up" to "rolling in hot" was less than 15 minutes during the battle...

In this case, I'd model the stains on the nose of the Airacobra pretty heavily where the fifties' muzzles are (a small, but noticeable amount on the spinner too for the cannon), but not much (if any) on the upper wing-surfaces where the thirties are (since the muzzles of the thirties are way out there)... Underneath however, the residue would be quite pronounced at the shell/link ejector-ports...  Same would go for a Spitfire or Hurricane on "Adler Tag"... Busy, busy, busy, those RAF chaps that day...  probably would go for the Lufwaffe's Me-109s that day too, although fewer individual missions would have been flown by a particular German pilot due to flight time from France to Britain...

So, franky, I'd go for a mix, depending on where & when I'm portraying the aircraft in the diorama...  Doing all that stuff on shelf-sitter? Nah... Doesn't look right to me there... I gota put 'em "in context" as it were.. Having just finished doing what they do, and/or about to do it again, right away...  

Oh yeah, another thing I thought of... Nightfighter guns with flash-hiders on the muzzles...  Like the P-38M, or the Mossie...  What say y'all to that 'un?    

This's a fun thread...

If you look at the calibers (defined as barrel length/barrel diameter) of your handguns vs a tank main gun you will find that your handgun is shorter in calibers than a tank gun. In other words there is more distance to get a better, more complete burn on a tank gun vs your hand gun

Also, let us recocgnize.....a tank does not blow off 50 rounds of ammo in one sitting.....very highly unlikely. Also every chance the crew gets the clean the barrel....thus no build up

Even on a howitzer which could fire 50 plus rounds...different powder, slower velocity, less smoke and carbon. Again, the crew will punch the tube whenever it can.

Sooooo to answer your question, as I said, nope you won't see it on 1 to 1 world thus.....

See Doogs answer!

Rounds Complete!!

Help me understand guys... I am a proud owner of .357 and .44 mag S&W revolvers.  After shooting 50-100 rounds (hell, its blast shooting those), you would see black residues around the muzzle and you got to clean them to make the stainless steel look beautiful like my wife!  I assume it is the same for the tanks and howitzers as long as it is not overdone... just little. 

the doog

I do it, and don't care if it's "realistic" or not--it's purely an artistic choice that conveys a feeling of having been in action, for me. But I only do it on WWII German tanks. I just think it looks cool.

Some modelers really DO overdo it though.

I don't disagree with this at all. I think a lot of what we do to our models may not be 'realistic' but may be necessary in order to portray an event, action, or something else like that. I was just curious if this was based on fact or mostly artistic impression. Its seems the fair answer is, well, both. Its present but over done.

Generally I don't have a problem with weathered models. I like them dirty as opposed to clean. Some rust and chipping doesn't really bother me either, whether or not it occurred in real life to that extent or not. You see, we aren't working in 1/1 scale. We don't have footage to show that our little tanks have participated in a battle, rolled through snow banks, or were drenched in a monsoon in south east Asia. No, our little models are a snap shot of certain events, historical, but also from our imagination. So in order to give a sense of action and adventure, I think its appropriate to add these little nuances to our models. Though perhaps not as subtle as some like, it lets us show a tank in the midst of a battle, a plane returning after a heated dog fight, etc. It gives the model character, and it breeds good discussion like we're having now.

I don't think that discoloration is caused by smoke so much but as it is by the flash burning the paint.. At least on the leading edges. Interior surfaces are probably discolored by the smoke residue.

Carbon from a gun will build up along the wings.  They would always be cleaned at the end of the flying day.  It was found that the carbon would cause corrosion and pitting on NMF aircraft.  Even when missiles, rockets, or a gun is fired, the crew chief will always clean the area around the weapon being fired.  The weapons troops would clean and lube the gun barrels at the end of the flying day.  The rocket launchers would be cleaned and lubed.  For a missile launcher the breach would be cleaned and in the case of a Sidewinder the launcher would be removed and cleaned in shop.  Rocket pods would be removed and cleaned in shop.  MER's, TER's and BRU's would be broken down and cleaned in shop. 

After a specified amount of rounds being fired from a gun, it would be removed and totally cleaned and inspected.  For the 20MM M-61A1 it was 100,000 rounds or one year which ever occured first.

No Crew Chief would ever allow carbon buildup to accumulate on his aircraft.  That would be the fastest way I know to have the line chief all over him.  He didn't want to spend the weekend on the wash rack washing aircraft for not keeping his jet clean.

the doog

I do it, and don't care if it's "realistic" or not--it's purely an artistic choice that conveys a feeling of having been in action, for me. But I only do it on WWII German tanks. I just think it looks cool.

Some modelers really DO overdo it though.

That is the correct answer!!!....A tank round is moving with it's gasses at around 2,400m/s. Even a howiter round is moving at 700 m/s....too fast to deposit

Looks good at 1/35.....not realistic at 1/1

Rounds Complete!!

But if you notice, the streaking doesn't extend very far back along the fuselage at all. Just the area surrounding the canon for the most part.

 

That's because of that plate above the muzzles... It's there to keep gun-gases outta the intakes.  Jet engines don't like gun-gas...

I do it, and don't care if it's "realistic" or not--it's purely an artistic choice that conveys a feeling of having been in action, for me. But I only do it on WWII German tanks. I just think it looks cool.

Some modelers really DO overdo it though.

Hans von Hammer

 

 

I gotta dig up some photos... I remember an F-86 that I saw that was almost black around the gun-ports and on the sides...  Someone had writen "MiG Killer" in the soot..

Ok, I agree with this and it makes sense. If the muzzle flash is coming directly into contact with the surface of the aircraft I can see how there would be carbon build up like you would see on an F-86. I did an A-4 not long ago and blackened the fuselage along side the canons because it made sense in this manner, and because I'd seen it in pictures like this:

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g151984/html/152032.htm

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g151022/html/151193c.htm

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g149959/html/150046.htm

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g151984/html/152081.htm

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g151022/html/151045.htm

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g151022/html/151096d.htm

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g151022/html/151088.htm  (what is interesting about this photo is that clearly this aircraft hasn't been cleaned up even though its already returned from a sortie and is off to fly another. Just goes to show maintenance didn't always have the time to spruce the planes up)

as opposed to these clean ones here:

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g149647/html/149658a.htm

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g149647/html/149658b.htm

http://a4skyhawk.org/5e/g151022/html/151125a.htm

But if you notice, the streaking doesn't extend very far back along the fuselage at all. Just the area surrounding the canon for the most part.

Nuthin' wrong with that, I reckon, lol..

I do it because I think it looks cool.

I'm curious about the physics of gun smoke streaking the wings of a fighter. If it is moving at 200-400 mph wouldn't most of the carbon/smoke dissipate before having a chance to cling to the wing surface? I've seen gun footage before, and there is truly a lot of smoke expelled from 6 .50 cals in the wings. I can see how the carbon would gather around the openings of the gun ports of a P-51 say, but I can't imagine they would be streaked half way down the wing. 

Like I said earlier, the farther out from the leading edge the muzzle is, the less carbon that hits the wings...  The carbon isn't in the smoke nearly so much as it is in the muzzle flash...   The flame is what actually contains the unburned powder and carbon and if it doesn't touch the wings, it doesn't leave a trail. This is even truer of sircraft that don't have exposed mzzles, like some jets... The F-86 comes to mind..

Doesn't airflow along the leading edge of a wing move slower than the air flowing over or under the wing? This would allow for greater carbon build up around the ports. Similar to how a ceiling fan gathers dust around the leading edge.

No, the airflow actually speeds up over the wing's top surface, causing a lower air pressure and the resulting lift.... At the leading edge, the air is the same until it actually hits it...  However, the faster-moving air would  cause a streak to be longer on the top than the bottom, although the shell ejection ports would have carbon streak as well...

I gotta dig up some photos... I remember an F-86 that I saw that was almost black around the gun-ports and on the sides...  Someone had writen "MiG Killer" in the soot..

This was a topic on another site- the poster had several photos of WWII tanks (mostly German), which were clearly "battle-hardened" and had no doubt shot off many shells, and none had any discolouration about the end of the barrel or on the muzzle brake.