Category And Colors

STANDARD INSIGNIA (Specifications 98-24102 and 24114)

The T. O. called for standard insignia to be used as required in Spec. 98-24102, or Spec. 24114 for camouflaged airplanes.

Spec. 98-24102-K was issued on November 1, 1935. As it so happened, this was also the last letter issue on this specification prior to World War II.

Although the design of the insignia on both wings and rudders remained exactly as before, several detail requirements were changed. For insignia on the wings, a new requirement was added that when the wing covering was both fabric and metal, the available chord length was to be that of the metal covered portion only.

This requirement was caused by the newer aircraft that were coming into service, which had metal covering over the forward portion of the wing and fabric on the aft portion. The effect of this was to effectively reduce the size of the national insignia as a proportion of the total wing chord, and this can be seen on many aircraft of the period. The requirement for the size of the available chord and maximum diameter and positions, remained exactly as before.

image52

Consolidated B-24C on a pre-delivery test flight in late 1941, shows the standard AAF camouflage to Spec. 24114. (Convair)

 

Stearman PT-13 in gloss A-N Time Blue and gloss A-N Orange Yellow Finish was one of the AAFs most important trainers, particularly in the early phases of the huge AAF training program. (Harry Gann)

 

image53

image54

image55

Metal Covering

 

Joint Line __

Fabric Covering

 

Standard wing insignia on both wings to Spec. 98-24102-K

 

Maximum width of rudder aft of the rudder post.

 

13 alternate stripes of equal width, seven red and six white. Parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane.

 

Standard rudder stripes to Spec. 98-24102-K

©Victor Archer

 

image56

image57

Stearman PT-13A al Randolph Field was one of ninety-two PT-13s and was used by the Stage Commander. Finished in the then standard trainer finish to Spec. 24113-A, it was nick-named the “Gray Ghost” or the “Washing Machine”, presumably as it was used when trainees either passed or washed-out in their primary training course.(USAF)

image58

Fairchild PT-19s of an unidentified school squadron at Oakland in 1941. They are finished in the gloss True Blue and Orange Yellow trainer aircraft scheme per Spec. 24113-A. (William L. Swisher)

image59

Ryan XPT-16, 39-717, at Wright Field forevaluation. This Is the first XPT-16, powered by a 125hp Menasco C4 inline engine. It was originally registered commercially as NC18907. Natural metal finish with insignia to Spec. 24102-K. This was the first monoplane primary trainer ordered by the Army.(Harry Gann)

For wings without ailerons, the requirements were changed so that the insignia was to be located on the metal covering tangent to the joint between the metal and fabric covering on wings where both fabric and metal were used for the wing covering.

The rudder design remained as before, with be seven red and six white stripes. It was also required that the surfaces of devices attached to the rudder, such as trim tabs, should be finished to blend with the adjacent surfaces of the rudder.

Amendment No. 2 to Spec. 98-24102-K, dated February 9, 1939 changed the insignia colors to conform to the new A-N Aircraft Color Standards (See Chapter 7).

image60,image61

Major changes were made in 1940 to the national insignia positions and placing, as a result of the decision to camouflage combat aircraft. Spec. 24114s requirements for insignia stated that one cocarde was to be applied on the upper surface of the left wing and one on the under surface of the right wing of the airplane. The design and dimensions of the wing cocarde were to conform to Spec. 98-24102. One cocarde was to be applied on each side of the fuselage midway between the vertical projections of the trailing edge of the wing and the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer. If transparencies were located in this area, the cocardes could be moved forward or to the rear as directed by the Air Corps Procuring Agency.

Ryan PT-20A-RY, 40-2416, with a Kinner R-440-1 engine. This was the last PT-20A-RY of a hatch of 27 re-engined PT-20s. Natural metal finish to Spec. 24113-A, (Harry Gann)

image63

Ryan PT-21-RY, 41-1881, the first one of 100, at Wright Field forevaluation. This was the result of the AAF discarding the Menasco engine and replacing it by the KJnner R-440-3 engine. All subsequent PT-21s had the radial engine. Finish was the same as the PT-20A. (Harry Gann)

The diameter of the circle for the fuselage cocarde was to be three-quarters of the length of the projection of the fuselage side. The design was to conform to Spec. 98-24102. All vertical tail surfaces, including the rudder, or rudders, were to be camouflaged and were not to have any insignia.

Insignia were to be applied with camouflage lacquer Spec. 14105 to metal surfaces, or with fully pigmented camouflage dope, Spec. 14106 to fabric surfaces. The colors were to conform to Bulletin 41 (see Chapter 7).

Thus, the newly camouflaged combat aircraft of the service had a completely revised placement of the national insignia. This was the first time that the service had used only one cocarde on the top and bottom of the wings, as suggested in McCook Field Report No, 1305 of 1920. (Although several more changes were to be made in the design of the national insignia in subsequent years, their position­ing has remained basically the same to date).

All non-combat aircraft, i. e. those which were not camouflaged, retained the cocarde and rudder stripes as specified in Spec. 98- 24102-K and amendments. Thus, the USAAF entered World War 11 with its combat and non-combat aircraft bearing national insignia in different positions. This was to be duly changed at a later date.

image64

Consolidated LB-ЗОЛ, aircraft AM259, was the second one produced, and is seen running up at San Diego, California, in December 1941. It is finished in the then current RAF heavy bomber scheme. The colors were Dark Earth, Dark Green and Night (only on bottom of fuselage). (USAF)

image65

North American BT-9 trainer of the 46th SS, aircraft no. “292", in the standard trainer finish of gloss A-N True Blue and Orange Yellow.

(USAF)

A-N Aeronautical Board proposed standardization of Insignia and Markings, October 8, 1942

A conference was held by the Aeronautical Board in Washington, DC, on October 8,1942, to review the proposed ANA spec, for Insignia and Markings on aircraft exteriors.

It was agreed that the principal benefit from the standardization of insignia and markings on Army and Navy aircraft was that it would allow manufacturers producing aircraft for both services to put the same insignia in all aircraft. However, considerable variations existed between the markings applied for both services and their would be little or no benefits from standardization of markings such as serial numbers as each aircraft carried a different serial number, and it made little difference to the manufacturer to which part of the airplane it was applied. Standardization of squadron insignia would also confer no benefit to manufacturers as they were not applied until the

image163

airplanes were assigned in service. Thus, it was agreed that standardization would be limited to the size and location of the national star insignia. The following agreements were reached:

a. There would be two insignia on the wings and two on the fuselage or hull.

b. The size and locations of the wing and fuselage insignia was decided.

The new spec, was finally released in March, 1943, as AN-1-9 (which see later).

Eglin Field issues report on test of Varied Camouflage of Fighter Aircraft, May 4,1943

Egiin Field issued another report in its continuing tests on camouflage, this one No. 3-43-47, dated May 4,1943. However, no copy of this report could be found at Eglin Field when requested by the author, so its contents remain unknown. However, no changes in the then current dark olive drab and neutral gray finish resulted, so it may be inferred that the results were basically negative.

AAF Bulletin No. 52, Aircraft Manufacturers’ Code Symbols, May 19,1943.

This Bulletin stated that the following manufacturers’ code symbols had been assigned to identify the aircraft manufacture and the plant in which the aircraft had been produced. These code symbols were to be added as a “suffix” to the present aircraft model designation, located on the aircraft as required in spec. 98-24105 (this list will be found in Appendix A).

Mat. Div. (Wash.) state that no definite recommendations for camouflage could be made throughout AAF due to conflicting theater needs, May 20,1943.

On May 20,1943, Mat. Div. (Wash.) forwarded to the Req. Div., OC&R (Wash.) the comments received in reply to the Dir. of Mil. Req. (Wash.) survey request dated March 24, 1943. Because of the conflicting replies received, Mat. Div, fell that no definite recommenda­tions could be made to the AAF as a whole. The Mat. Com. (WF) project on smooth camouflage was substantially complete; results were showing that it could result in increases of from 2 to 4 miles per hour in speed with no loss of camouflage effectiveness.

Removal of Camouflage Requested by “Urgent Secret” teletype. May 21, 1943.

The following “Urgent Secret” teletype was sent on May 21,1943, by the Commander, Eighth Air Force Bomber Command, England, to the Bomb Wing One:

It is considered advisable to remove the camouflage from all of our operational aircraft in order to gain additional speed coupled with less weight. It will require 30 gallons of paint remover and 200 man-hours per B-17 to accomplish this work. As the AFSC (Air Force Systems Command) will not be able to do this work for us due to shortage of personnel it is believed it will have to be accomplished by station personnel. It is planned to have this camouflage removal start on aircraft out for maintenance and repair and battle damage and gradually work towards fully operational aircraft.

This will possibly cause some of your formations to consist of half camouflaged and half uncamoutlaged aircraft at first but eventually they will all become uncamouflaged. It is realized that this will require an additional amount of labor and time on the part of our own personnel. It is believed the advantages to be gained will greatly outweigh this factor. Request your concurrence or non-concurrence in the above. Forward your reply by 1500, May 21, 1943.

If you are in concurrence with the above, this HQ.’s will take the necessary steps to furnish your command required material and personnel to provide camouflage coverings for your aircraft while in dispersal areas. Aircraft will not be stripped of camouflage until authority is granted by this HQ.’s.

image198

Three Boeing YB-40-VEs of the 91st BG at Bassingbourne, England, show the extra turrets installed under the nose and above the radio compartment of the converted B-17Fs. Seen on May 15,1945, these were intended to provide fighter protection for the bombers over Europe. The nearest one is 42-5736, the fifth one of twenty converted. (USAF)

The reply received on May 21, 1943, from the Commander, Bomb Wing One, Eighth Air Force, England, stated:

Concur in plan to remove camouflage from operational aircraft. Request this headquarters be furnished thirty (30) gallons of paint remover immediately so that comparative test can be made between a camouflaged airplane and one with the paint removed. Not desirable to start paint removal until satisfactory camouflage coverings are provided. Tests now being conducted in this wing on camouflage coverings for airplanes and coverings for dispersal points.

High Gloss camouflage investigated for night bombers, November, 1943

At this time, the Eighth Air Force was winding down the conversion of its day bombing operations to night bombing, which had been accelerated earlier, mainly as a result of its devastating losses in attacks on Regensburg and Schweinfurt. This had started in July, 1943, with a plan to convert six B-17 groups, three from each bomb division. These were the 92nd, 94th, 96th, 305th, 306th and 385th Bomb Groups.

This was a major undertaking, as the entire AAF bomb campaign in Europe had revolved around continual day operations, this complementing the British RAF night bombing operations. The lack of suitable long-range escort fighters had forced the Eighth AF to make its longer missions deep into Germany without fighter escort, and in the summer of 1943, the resulting losses were far too high to sustain.

Gen. Eaker ordered the necessary preparations for switching to night operations; this included the changes to the B-17 to allow its use at night. These changes proved to be very extensive, numbering 100 per aircraft. Quite apart from the addition of engine exhaust flame dampers, flash eliminators for the guns, blackout and anti-searchlight curtains for various crew stations, night lights, etc., the aircraft required repainting for night flying. The following information has been extracted from a "Secret” report issued by the 422 Bomb Sq. (H), 305 Bomb Group, on night operations. This report contained details of the results of converting 13 operational B-17F’s for use in night bombing missions over Germany, The repainting was both external and internal and consisted of the following:

1. Black-out band on windows.

A 1 1/2 inch black band or stripe was painted around the edge of each window in the radio and navigation compartments to prevent leakage of light around the black-out curtains. This was necessary on all aircraft and required one man, one hour per plane.

2. Blacken bombardier compartment.

All unpainted metal in the bombardier’s compartment had to be painted black to reduce reflection and glare from searchlights. One man, one hour per plane.

3. Blacken waist and tail sections.

The entire waist and tail sections of the aircraft had to be painted black to reduce reflection and glare from searchlights. The waist windows and door windows were painted black in order that in the case of emergency the dome lights could be turned on without danger of light escaping. One man, five hours per plane,

4. Blacken underside of aircraft.

The undersides of alt aircraft were painted with black camouflage paint. This required three men, eight hours to clean and paint each aircraft.

The report’s summary stated that:

It has been definitely proved that American Aircraft can operate at night. The obstacles, though considerable, are not impos­sible. It is not believed possible to operate both day and night with the same aircraft without losing a great deal of efficiency for one or the other.

For dusk operations there is a considerable time after sundown, and after it is too dark to fly formation, that the western sky will remain light enough to cause a bomber above to be silhouetted, while an enemy fighter below will, in all probability, be unseen.

Eleven personnel were listed as being responsible for the experimentation, modification, and the results of the project. These included seven USAAF personnel and four RAF personnel, showing the close cooperation between the two air forces.

At that time, the RAF was using matt black finishes on the underneath and vertical surfaces of its night bombers. However, these finishes considerably increased the drag of the aircraft. Moreover, the increasing effectiveness of the Luftwaffe night fighters increased the need for improved performance.

image246

A formation of nine U-17s on their way to Germany in late 1943, shows how well the new star and bar insignia can be seen underneath the aircraft. (Nick Williams)

Thus, the RAF was investigating the use of smooth, seem-gloss and high gloss black finishes for its aircraft. Information on these finishes was passed along to VIII Bomber Command, stating that they had been able to obtain approximately a 10 mph increase in speed, together with decreased detection by searchlights. However, they were afraid that a high gloss finish would be too easily detected in moonlight, This information set off research into the possible use of high gloss for the Eighth AF night aircraft.

In the event, the night operations by the 422nd Bomb Squadron, run in September and October, 1943, suffered higher-than-expected losses and caused the tests to be terminated. A top level conference at Eighth AF HQ. in October decided that the VIII Bomber Command would be better utilized by continuing its original day bombing, especially as suitable long-range fighters were now becoming available.

However, the night operation testing resulted in two new operations which continued to the end of the war:

(1) Leaflet dropping

(2) Operation Carpetbagger – support to the resistance movement in Europe.

A third operation was the use of B-24s in support of RAF Bomber Command’s 100th Group jamming operations, but this was concluded in March, 1945.

image247

Boeing B-17F-20-BO, 41-24519, aircraft "Miss Barbara" of the 305th BG, shows its almost brand-new Dark Olive Drab and Neutral Gray finish. Note the added gun ports in the transparent nose and the cover over the secret Norden bomb sight. Eighth Air Force. fUSAF)

 

image248

image249

Two Lockheed P-38Hs on the line at the Delta Air Lines modification facility at Atlanta. By this time in the war, many aircraft went directly from the manufacturers production lines to modification centers to have the latest changes incorporated. This kept the production lines moving at the very high rates needed to meet the AAF demands. (Delta Air Lines via Talbott)

Sub-Committee on Standardization, JAC’ (Wash.), continues use of camouflage and adopts two new Navy colors, January 19, 1944

The JAC sub-committee on Standardization met on January 19, 1944, to review the new requirements and policies of the three services concerning the use of camouflage on their aircraft. Particular attention was paid to the latest AAF Military Requirements Policy (MPR) No. 15, dated January 6,1944. The new AAF camouflage policy read as follows:

Aircraft allocated to Lend-Lease beneficiary governments and the Navy will be delivered with standard U. S. Army camou­flage, unless other specified camouflage has been requested bythe recipient Agency.

The AAF stated that MRP No. 15 only referred to camouflage paints and that the Material Command retained control of protective coatings. The committee decided that in view of this, that the existing service specifications should continue to define protective coatings. The AAF, Navy and British committee members agreed that:

1. The weight of camouflage paint applied to aircraft was less than had been commonly believed; for example, the paint on a B-24 aircraft only weighed 71 pounds, an insignificant proportion of the aircraft’s 60,000 pound gross weight.

2. The increase in drag due to rough camouflage paint was not a serious factor.

3. Aircraft on the ground could be camouflaged more effectively than in flight.

4. Navy tests on an F4U-1 aircraft showed that speed increases due to lack of camouflage were smalt, and their results substan­tiated those obtained by AAF and British tests.

The British member stated that they had found that nets were less effective over non-camouflaged aircraft on the ground, and the Navy member agreed with this statement. The AAF member said that MPR No, 15 did not apply to this situation.

image281

image282

Consolidated B-24H-20-DT, 41-28967, was the Formation lead aircraft for the 458th BG, 96th CBW, of the 2 Air Division, Eighth Air Force, it crash landed on March 9,1944. The forward half of the fuselage and all surfaces of the wing were painted in white with blue and red polka dots. The left of the aircraft was olive drab with yellow and red polka dots. Outer surfaces of the red vertical tails had a white stripe in the middle. The letter Z was in red. Just visible in the photograph is the row of lights on the white stripe in the middle of a red circle, replacing the fuselage cocarde. (USAF)

image283

Consolidated B-24H-20-DT, 41-28967, shown in happier days while it was still flying. Note the red, black and white shark teeth around the nose and the black outlined “eye”. (USAF)

image284

Consolidated B-24 crew prepare to board aircraft ‘‘Lonesome Polecat, Jr.” It is finished in Dark Olive Drab and Neutral Gray. (USAF via Gerry R. MarkgraD

In view of these statements and data, the committee decided that standard camouflage schemes would be applied by the manufacturers; if this was not possible, the camouflage would be applied at the Modification Centers.

The committee also approved the addition of the Navy Light and Dark Gull Grays to the standard camouflage colors. The Dark Gull Gray would replace the Navy Light Gray and the British Sea Gray Medium, and the Light Gull Gray would be an additional color.

These recommendations were approved by the JAC on January 27,1944.

image285

image286

North American P-51B-1-NA, 43-12216, aircraft AJ-U of the 356th FS, 354th FG, Ninth Air Force early in 1944, It is folly camouflaged and has the specified white bands around the nose and across the wings and tail surfaces. The spinner was also white. These markings were intended to help differentiate the P-51 from the German Messerschmitt Mel09. (USAF)

image287

Camouflage deleted from P-47s allocated to the British and French Air Forces, November 1, 1944

On October 20, 1944, the JAC approved the deletion of camouflage from all P-47 aircraft allocated to the French Government, and on November l, 1944, they did the same for P-47s allocated to the British Government. The Chief of Administration (WF) requested that they be informed of the serial numbers of the first non-camouflaged aircraft delivered to those countries.

Eleventh Air Force given data on comparative effectiveness of current camouflage schemes, November 6.1944.

The Production Engineering Division (WF) informed the CG, 11th AF Systems Command, on November 6, 1944, that standard olive drab camouflage, unpainted aircraft, and Jet black no. 622 finished aircraft, respectively, were most effective for daytime flight camou­flage. White, rather than gray, was better against a cloudy sky, but gray was effective against a clear sky.

They further stated that unpainted and olive drab finished aircraft were equally invisible against a heavy haze background, but that the olive drab finish gave better concealment for ground camouflage.

image380

North American P-51D-15-NA, 44-14951, aircraft E9-Pof the 367th FS, 361st FG, Eighth Air Force, is seen at strip A-64 on December 30,1944. It had been ordered to France to fly top cover for aircraft of the Ninth Air Force operating over the Battle of the Bulge. The spinner and nose were in yellow, as was the rudder. (William L. Swisher)

image381

North American P-51D-15-NA, 44-15387, aircraft SX-? “Stasia П", of the 352nd FS, 353rd FG, Eighth Air Force, at Raydon, England, in late December 1944. Spinner and nose markings are black and yellow. The under fuselage invasion stripes are still in place. (DSAF)

Spec. 98-24І13-В amended to change color of interior surfaces of AAF aircraft, August 1945

For a long time, the interior surfaces of all AAF aircraft had been painted “Yellow Green.” Amendment No. 3 to Spec. 98-24113-B was issued on August 18, 1945, and directed that all “Interior (Enclosed) Surfaces” were now to be finished in “Interior Green”, ANA Bulletin No. 157 color no. 611. This now meant that the interior of all AAF aircraft would be finished in either black, medium green, or interior green, depending on the location of the particular surface.

Spec. 98-24105-S adds new requirements for markings, including escape hatches,

September 1945.

This specification covering markings for airplanes and airplane parts had grown steadily in size with the increasing complexity of AAF aircraft and a new release, dated September 5, 1945, had grown to no less than twenty eight pages. The applicable changes follow:

H-5a. Camouflage Finishes.—All exterior markings on aircraft having camouflage finishes shall be applied with black, blue, or orange yellow, shades Nos. 604, 606, and 614, respectively, of Bulletin No. 157, of the same materials as the finish of the airplane. On aircraft having night camouflage finish, Jet No. 622, the exterior markings shall be applied with insignia red No. 619.

E-6. Fuselage Markings:

E-6a. The following markings, properly filled in, shall be stenciled on the left side of the fuselage, forward of the front cockpit. Where the cockpit is in the nose of the fuselage, the markings shall be placed to the rear of the cockpit:

U. S. ARMY—(Model Designation)

A. A. F. SERIAL NO

E-7. Vertical Tail Surface Markings:

E-7b(l). When there is a possibility that the numbers will be obscured by exhaust gas residue, they shall be placed as high up on the vertical surface as possible and still comply with the discernibility requirement.

E-7e. Gncamouflaged Airplanes.—For uncamouflaged airplanes, the radio call numbers shall be placed on the vertical stabilizer surfaces. For light colored backgrounds, the numbersshall be black, and for dark backgrounds, the numbers shall be International orange in accordance with color shade No. 508, Bulletin No. 166.

image430

North American P-51C-5-NT, 42-103896, aircraft No. 1078 of the 530"1 FS, 31Г*1 FG, of the Fourteenth Air Force seen from a C-47 it was escorting over rugged Chinese terrain, on July 24,1945. The bands on the yellow tail are black, spinner is yellow. Note the serial number on the fuselage and the direction-finding loop on top of the rear fuselage. (1JSAF)

E-7d. Camouflaged Airplanes.—For camouflaged airplanes, the radio cali numbers shall be placed to utilize both the vertical stabilizer and the rudder surfaces. For light colored backgrounds, the numbers shall be black in accordance with color shade No. 604 of Bulletin No. 157 and for dark backgrounds, the numbers shall be orange yellow In accordance with color shade No. 614 of Bulletin No. 157, except that the numbers for night fighter aircraft shall be Insignia Red in accordance with color shade No. 619 of Bulletin No. 157.

E-15b. External Markings.—The following external markings dealing with the identification of emergency exit open­ings and their operation from the outside of the airplane shall be in accordance with the following:

E-15b(l). Materials.—The markings for the identification of escape hatches, doors, and exits on the outside of the airplane shall be painted orange yellow in accordance with color shade No. 506 of Bulletin No. 166, except that on yellow sur faces the color shade shall be No. 515. The markings either shall be in lacquer conforming to Specification AN-L-29 or in enamel conforming to Specification AN-E-3.

E-15b(2). Exit Release,—All external releases for operating emergency exit panels shall be labeled “Exit Release” on the outside of the airplane to facilitate quick identification. This wording shall be painted orange yellow in accordance with color shade No. 506 of Bulletin No. 166, except that on yellow surfaces the color shade shall be No. 515.

E-15b(2) (a). Operation Instructions.—The wording describing the operation of the “Exit Release” shall be in standard English, such as “pull”, “push”, “turn”, or “slide”, and shall be painted orange yellow in accordance with color shade No. 506 of Bulletin No. 166, except that on yellow surfaces the color shade shall be No, 515.

E-I5b(2) (b). Size of Lettering.—The words “Exit Release” and “pull”, “push”, "turn”, or “slide” shall be preferably 2 inches in height, and shall not be less than 1 inch in height.

E-16. Identification of Areas for Auxiliary Exits, for Forced Entry into Aircraft for Rescue Purposes, and for Forced Exits:

E-16a. Markings.—The following markings dealing with the identification, from the outside of the airplane, of areas for forced entry into airplanes for rescue purposes and with the identification, from the inside of the airplane, of areas for forced exit shall be in accordance with the following:

E-16a(l). Materials.—The markings for the identification, from the outside of the airplane, of areas for forced entry into airplanes for rescue purposes, and the markings for the identification, from the inside of the airplane, of areas for forced exit shall be painted orange yellow in accordance with color shade No. 506 of Bulletin No, 166, except that on yellow surfaces the color shade shall be No. 516. The markings either shall be in lacquer conforming to Specification AN-L-29 or in enamel conforming to Specification AN-E-3.

image431

Douglas A-26s of the 8th, 13th, 89th, and 90th AS, 3rd AG, Fifth Air Force, seen at Belo Airstrip, Okinawa, on August 11, 1945. All aircraft are camouflaged in ANA Olive Drab No. 613 and Sea Gray No. 603, as requested by the AAF Commanders in the Pacific. The squadron fin top bands are yellow for the 8th AS, red for the 13th AS, green for the 89th AS, and White for the 90th AS. (USAF)

E-16a(2). Identification of Areas Around Auxiliary Exits.—Openings, such as auxiliary exits, windows, and navigators domes, are usually of a smaller size than the primary openings and consequently entry or exit is more difficult. Where the struc­ture immediately surrounding the foregoing openings is free from heavy structural members such as bulkheads and main longi­tudinal members, from oxygen, fuel, and oil lines, and battery leads, such areas shall be marked, both on the inside and out­side of the fuselage at the extreme boundary of such areas, with a broken band, which shall be orange yellow in accordance with color shade No. 506 of Bulletin No. 166, except that on yellow surfaces the color shade shall be No. 516,

E-16a(2) (a). Size of Broken Identification Marking Band.—The broken identification marking band, both on the inside and outside of the fuselage, shall be 1/2 of an inch in width. Each segment of the broken band shall be approximately 1 inch in length, with segments approximately 12 inches apart. Examples of the identification of such areas on the outside of the airplane are shown in Figures 4 and 6.

E-16a(3). Identification Nomenclature.—The words “Cut Here For Emergency Rescue", shall be painted or stenciled on the inside of, parallel with, and immediately adjacent to the broken band identifying an area on the outside of the airplane, for forced entry into the aircraft for rescue purposes. The words, “Cut Here For Emergency Exit” shall be painted or stenciled on the inside of, parallel with, and immediately adjacent to the broken band identifying an area, on the, inside of the airplane, for forced exit from the airplane. The foregoing nomenclature shall be orange yellow in accordance with color shade No. 606 of Bulletin No. 166, except that on yellow surfaces the color shade shall be No. 516.

EJ6a(3) (a). Size of Lettering,—The words, “Cut Here For Emergency Rescue” and “Cut Here For Emergency Exit”, shall be painted or stenciled approximately 1 inch in height.

E-16a(4). Identification of Other Areas.—Other emergency escape areas are usually areas of a type which may be cut through to provide a means of rescue when entrance or exit cannot be made in any other manner. These areas shall be deter­mined by visual inspection of each affected airplane, since relocation and reinstallation of equipment, furnishings, oxygen, fuel and oil lines, and battery leads may have been made which would not be indicated on the installation drawing of the airplane. These areas shall be as close as possible to the normal stations of personnel, except where personal injury to occupants might result from forced entry at that point These areas shall be marked both on the inside and outside of the fuselage by painting or stenciling corner markings only which shall be orange yellow in accordance with color shade No. 506 of Bulletin No. 166, except that on yellow surfaces the color shade shall be No, 515.

E-16a(4) (a). Size of Identification Corner Markings.—The horizontal and vertical bars of the corner markings, both on the inside and outside of the fuselage, shall be approximately 3inches in length and 1 inch in width. Examples of the identifica­tion of such areas on the outside of the airplane are shown in Figures 6 and 7.

E-16a(5). Identification Nomenclature.—The words, “Cut Here For Emergency Rescue”, shall be painted or stenciled in the approximate center of the four corner markings, on the outside of the airplane, indicating other areas for forced entry into the aircraft for rescue purposes. The words, “Cut Here For Emergency Exit”, shall be painted or stenciled in the approximate center ofthe four corner markings, on the inside of the airplane, indicating other areas for forced exit from the airplane. The foregoing nomenclature shall be orange yellow in accordance with color shade No. 506 of Bulletin No. 166, except that on yellow surfaces the color shade shall be No. 515.

E-16a(5) (a). Size of Lettering.—The words “Cut Here For Emergency Rescue” and “Cut Here For Emergency Exit”, shall be painted or stenciled approximately 1 inch in height.”

image432

Boeing B-17G-I10-VE, 44-85815, an Eglin Field lest aircraft, is seen carrying a JB-1 flying bomb under the right wing. This missile was the US built version of the infamous Fieseler Fi 156 V-l flying bomb, (author’s collection)

CHANGES AND REVISIONS TO AIRCRAFT MARKING, INSIGNIA AND CAMOUFLAGE AFTER THE FORMATION OF THE USAAF

Radio call numbers replace aircraft designators, August 1941

A major change in USAAF markings for its aircraft introduced the now familiar radio cal! number painted on the vertical tail surfaces. Shortly after the revised April 8,1941, issue of T. O. 07-1-1 came out, the Air Corps Inspection Division recommended that the specified airplane designators should be replaced by the airplane radio call (i. e. the aircraft serial number). It was suggested that this should be painted in large figures in a conspicuous place on the airplane, such as on the fin or the side of the fuselage. Meanwhile, the Training and Operations Division had also recommended that the number should be painted on the vertical fin at the factory, as this would be easy and the number would also serve as the manufacturer’s identification.

Both of these recommendations were approved by the Chief of the USAAF in a teletype to Maintenance Command on August 22, 1941.

The radio call number was made up of the last digit of the fiscal year of procurement, followed by the Army Air Force serial number. For example, Boeing B-17E, serial number 41-2393 would have the radio call number 12393 painted on the vertical tail.

Another change was that the new designator was to be painted on by the manufacturer at the factory, whereas previously, airplane designators had been painted on by the service units concerned.

Each Army Air Force airplane (including training types), regardless of whether equipped with radio, was to be identified. The call numerals composing the airplane designator were to be of the vertical block type, the width two-thirds of the height and the strokes approximately one inch (2.54 cm) wide for every six inches (15.24 cm) of height. The distance between the letters was to be equal to half the width of a letter.

CHANGES AND REVISIONS TO AIRCRAFT MARKING, INSIGNIA AND CAMOUFLAGE AFTER THE FORMATION OF THE USAAF

image66

Vultee BT-13 trainer on a test flight prior to delivery in the blue and yellow trainer finish. The initial Army order for 300 of the type was the largest placed for basic trainers at that time. Production of the famed “Vibrator" eventually ran to no less than 9,228 of all versions. (Harry Gann)

 

Radio call number added to vertical stabilizer.

 

Height of numbers to be such that the radio call tail designator will be readily discernible from a distance of approximately 150 yard (137 m). Designator to appear on each side of the vertical stabilizer. If more than one vertical stabilizer, the designator is to appear on the left exposed side of the left-hand stabilizer and on the right exposed side of the right-hand stabilizer. On camouflaged airplanes, the designator will use the necessary area of both the vertical stabilizer and the rudder. If there is insufficient area in these positions, the numerals can be placed on the side of the fuselage.

Black numerals to be used against a light background or yellow against a dark background.

 

TO 07-1-1 A, October 28, 1941.

© Victor Archer

 

image67

image68

North American BT-14 was an updated version of the earlier ВТ-У trainer, having a metal covered fuselage and tail surfaces of the same shape as the BC-1 (later the AT-6). 251 were built, finished in the True Blue and Orange Yellow scheme per Spec. 24113- A. (March AFB Museum)

 

image69

Three North American BT-14s show the underwing markings, with the two eocardes and “U. S.ARMY” lettering. (March AFB Museum)

image70Due to the varied sizes and configurations of Army Air Force airplanes, it was impractical to specify a standard height of letters that would meet she requirements for all airplanes. In general, the height of the numerals was such as to make the designator readily discern­ible from a distance of approximately 150 yards (137 m). The numerals comprising the designator were to appear in one line painted in a centrally located position.

For airplanes not camouflaged, the designator was to be on each side of the vertical stabilizer. If there was more than one vertical stabilizer, the designator was to appear on the left exposed side of the left-hand stabilizer and on the right exposed side of the right-hand stabilizer.

On camouflaged airplanes, the designator was to be the same as above, except that the necessary area of both the vertical stabilizer and the rudder was to be utilized. If there was insufficient area on the vertical stabilizer or on the vertical stabilizer and rudder combined, the numerals could be placed on the sides of the fuselage.

image71
Black numerals were to be used against a light background – in the case of camouflaged airplanes, black Shade 44 of Bulletin No. 41. Yellow was to be used against a dark background, A-N orange-yellow for uncamouflaged airplanes or Identification Yellow, shade 48 of Bulletin No. 41, for camouflaged airplanes. (These radio call numbers remained in use throughout the life of the USAAF and continue to be used by the USAF at time of writing).

image72

Beech AT-7 navigation trainer (the Army’s first) was an adaptation of the C-45 transport. First ordered in 19-41,577 of this variant were built. Natural metal finish to Spec. 24113-A. (USAF)

The recommendation to have the radio call number painted on by the manufacturer was carried out by an order issued to contractors by the Prod. Eng. Sect, in November 1941. This specified that the airplane designator was to be painted on the aircraft prior to delivery, providing only that there was to be no additional cost to the government or delay in delivery of the aircraft.

Revised T.0.01-1-21 covers use of decalcomanias on Air Service Command Aircraft, and deletes Wright Field arrowhead insig­nia, October 14,1942

Technical Order No. 01-1-21 stated that the new Air Service Command (ASC) Insignia, consisting of an internal gear faced with a four bladed propeller, was to be placed on all aircraft assigned to the Command. Only decalcomanias were to be used. No standard location was specified, but the preferred position was on the fuselage sides between the star insignia and the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer, The Wright Field arrowhead identifying insignia was to be eliminated when the new ASC insignia was applied to aircraft, thus depot or sub-depot identifying letters were to be painted in insignia blue paint on the white shield at the bottom of the ASC insignia. The new decals were available in 16 and 24 inch sizes.

Letters “U. S. ARMY” under lower wings of training aircraft ordered removed, October 19, 1942

On October 19,1942, the Production Division issued a Priority teletype issuing instructions for the deletion of “U. S.ARMY” from the lower wing of training aircraft, effective October 11,1942. This followed instructions issued by the Dir. of Mil. Req. for the removal of the letters “U. S.ARMY” from the under surfaces of all aircraft. Spec. No. 98-24105-Q, Amendment No. 1, dated November 2, 1942, subsequently deleted all requirements for lower wing markings, except for the insignia.

AAF Proving Ground Command, Eglin Field, FL, issues final report on test of Haze paint, October 23,1942.

Report No. 3-42-32 covering testing of haze paint at Eglin Field, was released on October 23, 1942, by the AAF Proving Ground Command. The conclusions stated that:

a. That the subject paint, while slightly superior to standard camouflage under haze conditions, is not superior to other types of camouflage,

b. That the subject haze paint, in its present form, is not as durable as the present camouflage finish.

They recommended that no further tests of the subject haze paint be considered.

The report stated that the tests were run as a result of directions from the Director of Military Requirements, dated April 25, 1942, with the object of establishing the comparative value of haze paint for the camouflage of airplanes with the standard camouflage now used by the AAF.

Many individual observations were made of the haze paint in comparison to standard camouflage, white paint, and a white-and-gray combination. Special missions were run at different altitudes, with various approaches, to establish factual data on the distances from which the stated types of camouflage would be perceived by observers, and the distances at which the camouflaged airplanes disappeared from sight.

Haze painted airplanes parked on various types of terrain were more visible at low altitudes than airplanes with standard camouflage, but from high altitudes both types of camouflage had the same visibility. (Photographs attached to the report showed haze painted and standard camouflaged airplanes paired on macadam, white concrete, and grass). Some P-39 airplanes used for the speed run included 41­6762, in both standard dark olive drab and natural metal finishes, 41-6775, in standard dark olive drab, in natural metal finish, and in haze paint. It was found that there was no appreciable difference of speed of the aircraft in any of the finishes.

At night, both dark olive drab and haze finishes showed up clearly in searchlight beams, the haze paint actually stood out more than the dark olive drab. During day missions, when observed from above against a foliage, broken landscape, or a water background, haze paint was more visible than standard camouflage.

When observed from below, at certain sun-target-observer angles, one wing of the haze painted airplane did at times blend in perfectly with the background. At no time did the entire haze painted airplane “disappear” completely. However, it was also noted that all camouflaged airplanes had certain angles at which one wing disappears. White camouflage did this against a cumulus background, and olive drab against foliage, from certain angles.

Luminosity of the haze paint showed that there was a very perceptible contrast of brightness between the haze paint and the sky background, and illustrated why there was no “disappearance” of the haze painted airplane. Tests of observation from the ground of the various test airplanes flying at altitudes of 10, 000, 15,000, and 20,000 feet were inconclusive. Regarding durability of the haze paint, it was noted that after two months of operation at Eglin Field, that the haze paint had worn of all of the leading edges of the airplane, down to the black undercoat, and on the side of the airplane used by pilots and ground crew in servicing, some of the paint was down to the metal. Consequently, the airplane had to be repainted for further testing. As a result, it was believed that the standard AAF paint was more durable under field conditions.

Eglin Field issues report on day time camouflage, May 26, 1943

Report No. 3-43-30 was issued by Eglin Field on May 26,1943, titled "Test of Daytime Camouflage”. This covered tests which had been run to determine the effectiveness of blue and gray paints as camouflage against lateral observation. It was concluded that gray was a better camouflage for side surfaces rather than the standard dark olive drab.

The report recommended that gray should be used for the side surfaces of heavy bombardment and large transport aircraft, because the olive drab often became darker or lighter under tropical conditions and lost its camouflage value. Eglin Field suggested that Mat. Com. investigate the color change of olive drab.

image199

A closer view of the YB-40-VE of the 91st BG clearly shows the chin turret, later adopted on the B-17G, to provide extra protection against the German fighter head-on attacks. (USAF)

image200

Bell P-39D-1-BE, 41-28361, aircr aft “253” and three others of a training unit. In standard camouflage finish, (hey have white spinners and aircraft numbers on the nose. Note the almost white streaks from the engine exhaust stacks on all of the aircraft. (USAF via Gerry R. Markgraf)

Markings for walkways and “No Step” added to Spec. 98-24105-Q, June 7,1943.

Amendment No. 4 to Spec. 98-24105-Q, issued on June 7, 1943, added a new paragraph, E-19, which read as follows:

E-19. Marking for Walkways. – All walkways shall be differentiated from other external surfaces of the airplane by a border two inches wide in black. The surrounding areas immediately adjacent to the walkway shall be labeled “NO STEP”.

This was the first official use by the USAAF of this now common marking (note, though, that B-17s had used such markings from their first deliveries).

New version of T. O. 07-1-1 issued in color, June 15, 1943.

A revised version ofT. 0.07-1-1 was issued on June 15, 1943, containing color chips and color views of the various official camouflage schemes at that time. In view of its importance, it is repeated in full below.

T. O. NO. 07-1-1 JUNE 15, 1943.

AIRCRAFT
CAMOUFLAGE
MARKINGS AND INSIGNIA

This Technical Order replaces T. O. Nos. 07-1-1, dated June 1, 1943,

07-1-lA dated January 9 1943 and 07-1 – IB dated August 15 1942.

Note: The work directed herein will be accomplished whenever necessary by service activities with the aid of sub-depots if necessary.

NOTICE: This document contains information affecting the National Defense of the United States within the meaning of the Espionage Act 50, U. S. C. 31 and 32 as amended. Its transmission or the revelation of its contents in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.

SECTION I