Category And Colors

Exp. Eng. Sect. (WF), investigated the method for camouflaging pursuit aircraft which were being used in studies of photographic installations. Two kinds of paint were used for the tests, namely:

(1) Cabot Haze Paint, which was a colloidal dispersion of zinc oxide in oil. The plane had a bluish appearance (sky) when the paint was applied in a thin coating over a black background.

(2) A pinkish white and a micaceous paint procured from the Lowe Bros. Paint Co, Dayton, Ohio (hereafter Lowe Bros.) The tentative conclusions were that a flat white camouflage paint was most suitable for camouflage against clouds and the haze paint was preferable for blue-sky conditions. Exp. Eng. Sect, stated that further tests would be conducted to ascertain satisfactory results.

Permanent Camouflage Paints tested in Florida, January 1942.

Suitable finishes for permanent camouflage of aircraft were discussed in a report prepared by WF. Laboratory tests of applications and removal, adhesion, durability and optical reflection characteristics were included in the investigation. WF concluded that, after five months of Florida exposure, permanent materials, of low gloss, color retention and satisfactory adhesion, had been developed, A method of measuring the specular gloss of camouflage finishes had also been developed.

Two of the B-25B-NA* of Col. Jimmy Doolittle’s Tokyo strike force on the deck of the carrier CSS Hornet, on April 18,1942. The right aircraft is 40-2282. Note how crammed the aircraft were on the deck. (USAF)

Request by the RAF for standardization of B-I7E camouflage, January 28,1942.

The RAF requested that the JAC make another effort to standardize the camouflage being applied to B-17Es at the modification centers, commenting that the previous differences of location of operational units of the two countries did not now apply, so it should be possible to find a common camouflage scheme for each class of aircraft. Under the aircraft allocation pooling then in force, it was difficult to paint different patterns at the manufacturing plants.

Technical Sub-Committee On Camouflage decides that the AAF basic camouflage scheme and the U. S. Navy basic camouflage scheme be accepted as the production standard for all aircraft produced in the U. S. March 5, 1942.

The Technical Sub-Committee on Camouflage met on March 5, 1942, to discuss the problems raised by the British Air Committee requiring that British camouflage schemes be painted at the factory on all aircraft destined for the RAF and FAA. This was to be applied

either before the aircraft left the U. S. or after it reached the British theater of war. The British also stated that it was impossible for them to accept the U. S. camouflage schemes operationally.

The Sub-Committee decided that it was impracticable to adopt the British schemes as standard, because that system was based on the Service being able to anticipate the aircraft’s operational theater or role while it was being completed at the manufacturer.

They then considered camouflage schemes which could be used as a basis for all aircraft and could be converted to other services requirements with the least difficulty. It was agreed that this consideration could be converted into two standard basic schemes, (1) camouflage for land based aircraft, (2) camouflage for ship based aircraft, this to also include flying boats.

The British representative stated that 70% of the British camouflage schemes used a “Dark Green,” which was very similar to the Army dark olive drab, thus they could accept this in lieu of the Dark Green throughout the camouflage programs. For ship based aircraft, the British stated that the U. S, Navy colors would be acceptable.

The current policy of pooling all aircraft production was given as a very strong reason to accept the two basic camouflage schemes, and this was accepted by all present. It was also recommended that the requirements for insignia and markings of a particular Service be accomplished as follows:

a. When the allocation of aircraft was determined before production was complete, the insignia and markings of a particular Service would be applied at the factory.

b. When an aircraft was diverted from one service to another, the change of insignia and markings would be made at the modification centers.

In conclusion, the British representatives at the meeting agreed to submit the U. S. Navy camouflage system to the authorities in Great Britain for a decision as to whether or not it was acceptable. It was also agreed that the British would submit to the U. S. Army their specific requirements for camouflage on all types of Army aircraft in production in the US.

One North American B-25C-NA, 41-12848, with two B-25Ds, operating in the anti-submarine role. B-2SD-1-NC, 41-29917, has no ventral turret, while B-25D-20-NC, 41-30583 has both ventral and dorsal turrets. The latter aircraft were the Kansas city built version of the B-25C. Note the white anti-submarine finish on the B-25C. (Harry Gann)

Responsibility for Aircraft Camouflage development defined, April 1942,

At this time, the Chief of Engineers was the War Dept. Agency responsible for the development of protective coloration and camouflage of all items of equipment, supplies and materials except aircraft. The Air Corps Board had held that responsibility for aircraft since 1940, while the Exp. Eng. Sect. (WF) was responsible for the material necessary for the camouflage.

The Director of Base Services (Washington) on April 2,1942, recommended that;

The Air Corps Board continue their responsibility for the development of means and methods for the camouflage of aircraft in flight and on the ground.

Chief of Engineers continue development of all materials for camouflage of aircraft on the ground.

The Dir. of Mil. Req. (Wash.) be responsible for the approval and execution of camouflage schemes.

The Dir. of Mil. Req. pointed out on April 8, 1942, that the Air Corps Board had been inactivated as such, and functions were being handled by the AAF Proving Ground Command, Eglin Field, Florida, operating under Dir. of Mil. Req. That Directorate would now be accountable for the approval of camouflage schemes for aircraft developed by Material Command or Air Service Command. (Note: this points out how difficult it had been for Gen. Arnold to get a complete grip on the responsibilities and authority of the recently formed USAAF).

Gen. Arnold directs that “summer” camouflage be put immediately on all aircraft leaving U. S., March 14,1942.

Gen. Arnold caused some confusion by directing that “summer” camouflage be painted immediately on all aircraft leaving the U. S. He ordered that machinery was to be established so that camouflaging would be automatic as soon as it was determined for which theater the plane was destined. Brig. Gen. Fairchild, Dir. of Mil. Req. (Wash.), on April 7,1942, pointed out that there was no summer camouflage, but that the Joint Aircraft Committee (JAC) had approved the following camouflage for all land-based aircraft produced in the U. S.:

a. Surfaces seen from above to be painted the Army olive drab; surfaces seen from below to be painted a neutral gray. For night operations, a flat black color was to be used.

Prior to this, on March 19,1942, the Eng. Sec.(WF) had been told of Arnold’s order by the Prod. Eng. Sec., Washington. They replied on March 25, 1942, that after Study 42 had been conducted, it had been decided that all tactical aircraft should be camouflaged with a uniform design and color. They therefore recommended that all aircraft leave the country with the standard camouflage finish and that the special colors be applied in the combat zone to suit the particular terrain. This recommendation was based on the difficulty presented by the ever changing military situation.

In a letter to the AAF Resident Representative at Burbank, dated November 18,1942, Lockheed summarized data regarding the camou­flaging of F-4 and F-5A aircraft. Cabot haze paint had been used, as instructed by WF. This had proved unsatisfactory due to the difficulties in obtaining timely deliveries, the experimental stage of development, roughness of surfaces finished with this paint and the length of drying time. Lockheed had requested that they be allowed to use a Lowe Bros, lacquer type haze camouflage or Sherwin – Williams Kern-Haze enamel. These paints were not acceptable to Mat. Center (WF) because the permissible reflective values were exceeded by these paints. After a thorough inspection of the aircraft and test flights, the haze camouflage had to be “touched-up”, which produced a whiter surface than desired.

Summarizing, Lockheed’s investigation and experience to date in the use of the various haze camouflage materials, they felt that this type of camouflage scheme was extremely impractical for permanent applications, since it was impossible, underproduction conditions, to apply a finish which presented the desired camouflage effects.

Lockheed requested that they be allowed to revert to the standard camouflage on the remaining F-5A aircraft. (This report did not result in any changes to the existing haze camouflage requirements for the F-5As for some considerable time. See continuation in Chapter 2 – author).

7. TRAINERS,

a. The following types of aircraft are considered to be trainers:

(1) Primary Trainers (PT).

(2) Basic Trainers (ВТ).

(3) Advance Trainers (AT).

(4) Training Gliders (TG).

(5) Aircraft of other types regularly used for training purposes by the Flying Training Command.

(6) Ail types of aircraft not regularly assigned to, or normally located in, theaters of operation.

b. FINISHES,—All trainer aircraft will have aluminized finish, except those being by construction having an Alclad alloy finish. (See figure 8.)

c. APPLICATION OF FINISHES.

(1)
Anodized alloy and miscellaneous steel parts may have two coats of aluminized lacquer, if neces­sary to match surrounding parts.

(2) All other exterior metal surfaces will be finished with one coat of zinc chromate primer, Specifi­cation No. AN-TT-P-656, and two coats of aluminized lacquer consisting of lacquer, cellulose nitrate, class A, clear, Specification No. AN-TT-L-51, with 6 to 8 ounces per gallon of bronze aluminum pigment paste, type B, Specification No. TT-A-468 or AN-TT-A-461.

(3) Exterior plywood surfaces will be finished in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions except that two or more finish coats will be pigmented with 8 ounces per gallon of bronze aluminum, pigment paste, Specification No. TT-A-468 type B, or Specification No. AN-TT-A-461.

(4) All exterior fabric parts will have four coats of clear nitrate dope, Specification No. AN-TT-D – 514. (Aluminized dope vehicle AN-TT-D-551 is not a suitable substitute as it does not have the tautening qualities of AN-TT-D-514.)This will be followed by two or more coats of aluminized dope prepared by adding 6 to 8 ounces per gallon of bronze, aluminum pigment paste, type B, Specification No. TT-A-468 or AN-TT-A461, to dope, cellulose nitrate, clear, Specification No. AN-TT-D-551.

(5) Patching will be accomplished with clear dope, Specification No. AN-TT-D-514 applied in same manner as semipigmented dope previously used.

(6) EMERGENCY REJUVENATOR FOR OLD FABRIC,—To one gallon of 2 to 1 mix of clear dope, Specification No. AN-TT-D-514, and blush retarding thinner, Specification No. AN-TT-T-258, add one fluid ounce each of tricresyl phosphate and castor oil. Apply one coat by brush to clean surface, followed by one spray coat. After several hours’ drying, spray one coat aluminized dope prepared as specified in para­graph 7.a.(4).

(7) For removal of all types of paint material from metal surfaces, use paint and varnish remover, Specification No. 14119. For removal of dope from fabric surfaces, use nitrate dope and lacquer thinner, Specification No. AN-TT-T-256.

d. MARKINGS.

(1) Each part and assembly will be permanently and legibly marked with the same number as the drawing number in such location that it can be read after assembly in the unit. (See Specification No. 98- 24105-Q.)

(2) Various detail and code markings for the cockpit, fuselage, oil lines, etc., as required in Specifi­cation No. 98-24105-Q will be maintained. Use of one coat of varnish, Specification No. TT-V-121 orAN-TT – V-116, for protection of fuselage legend is authorized.

(3) Radio call letters will be used as prescribed in paragraph 3.c.

(4) Painting of ring cowls is authorized in colors as directed by the CommandingGeneral of the Flying Training Command.

(5) Field numbers are authorized as designated by the Commanding General of the Flying Training Command for use in Army Air Forces Training Centers and Civil Flying Schools. They will be of contrasting color, preferably block type, and will be applied to opposite sides of the fuselage between the trailing edge of the wing and the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer directly in front of the star insignia. The height will be approximately 75 percent of the height of fuselage at that point. (See figure 8.)

e. Standard insignia will be used as prescribed in paragraph 4.

/. All markings and insignia will be made with enamel, Specification No. AN-E-3, insignia colors in oil. Specification No. 3-120, or lacquer, Specification No. AN-TT-L-51.

It is worth mentioning at this point that large numbers of aircraft were supplied to the Soviet Union during the war, under the provisions of Lend-Lease, by the USA and the United Kingdom. Very little was ever released by the Soviet Union on the extent of this help, and in view of the previous entry describing the requirements for camouflage on some of these aircraft produced by Douglas, we are providing a list of the aircraft sent to Russia:

EglLn Field publish report on Glossy Paint for Night Camouflage, December 10,1943.

On December 10,1943, Egiin Field published report No. 3-43-114, “Test of glossy Paint for Night Camouflage”. This stated that compa­rable tests were conducted at Egiin Field with aircraft finished with a special black paint of high specular and low diffuse reflectance and aircraft finished with the standard matt black paint. The matt black aircraft appeared “silvery” white in the searchlights, while the glossy black (622 Jet Black) aircraft was invisible 75% of the time and the effectiveness of both optically and radar controlled searchlights was greatly reduced, except from the specular angle.

The visibility of the glossy black in moonlight was increased over the standard matt black. Waxing or “simonizing” assisted in maintain­ing the effectiveness of this camouflage since a high gloss played such an important part. Egiin Field recommended that the special black paint be standardized and replace the standard matt black

On March 25,1944, the CG AAF Training Command wrote to CG, AAF, Washington, DC, stating that they desired to paint the fuselage of all primary trainers blue and the wings yellow This was to improve the visibility of the trainers to decrease the possibility of accidents in flight. A survey they had run showed that many air collisions were being caused by the poor visibility of the silver painted airplanes. Repainting of the aircraft in service could be done over a period of time without interfering with training.

HQ AAF approved the request on May 6, 1944, providing it did not interfere with training operations.

New version of T. O. 07-1-1, issued on April 25, 1944, gives instructions for removal of camouflage, at the discretion of the commanders concerned.

This new version of T. O, 07-1-1 was the first to cover the removal of camouflage finishes from aircraft in service anti read as follows (unchanged paragraphs have been omitted):

1. AIRCRAFT CAMOUFLAGE

a. GENERAL. – Camouflaging of the exterior surface of AAF aircraft is hereby discontinued except for helicopters, liaison airplanes, gliders and night fighters and as may be directed otherwise by the Commanding General, Army Air Forces. Aircraft destined for delivery to U..S, Navy and foreign agencies are not included in these requirements. This docs not, however, elimi­nate the required identification data, insignia, antiglare coatings, and corrosion prevention.

b. REMOVAL.

(1) Paint may be removed from presently camouflaged metal aircraft by the operating organizations at the discretion of Com­manders concerned, when local facilities and materials are available, provided no interruption in operations results. Aluminized parts installed on camouflaged aircraft will not be camouflaged. However, when any unpainted metal surface of sufficient area is installed that would materially affect the flight characteristics of the airplane, the remaining camouflage paint may be re­moved. Camouflaged metal parts installed on unpainted airplanes need not have camouflage removed.

(2) For removal of all types of paint materials from metal surfaces, use paint and varnish remover, Specification No. 14119, in conformance with T. O. No. 07-1-7. If not available, lacquer finishes may be removed with material compounded by the fol­lowing formula: 3 gallons benzene, 2 gallons acetone, and 1 pound of paraffin wax. For removal of dope from fabric surfaces, use nitrate dope and lacquer thinner, Specification No. AN-TT-T-256.

NOTE On airplanes having laminar flow wings, paint should be removed only from the trailing 60 percent of the wings. Sand the edges at the 40 percent chord enough to “feather” but exercise care that the cladding is not removed. Hide the olive drab finish on the leading 40 percent of both top and bottom of the wing with either aluminized lacquer or aluminized varnish as applicable. This is necessary in order that the special putty and surfacer on that portion of the wings be left undisturbed.

See T. O. No. 01-1-140 for information on aerodynamic cleanliness.

Consolidated B-24M-5-CO, 44-41876, aircraft “Lucky Strike”, of the 330th BS, 380th BG. Assigned to the Fifth Air Force in the Pacific, the group was attached to the Royal Australian Air Force until January, 1945. (USAF via Gerry R. Markgraf)

Six Vultee BT-13s lined up at a training school. Only serial visible is on aircraft 40-983, which has a black cowl. Note its aluminized finish over the fuselage and outer wing panels. Other aircraft have yellow, and red cowls, while the last one has a gold band around its cowl. Note the lack of fuselage insignia. (USAF via Gerry R, Markgraf)

c. FABRIC AIRCRAFT. – Liaison aircraft, helicopters, and gliders still require standard day camouflage. Other fabric covered aircraft and all control surfaces will be aluminized when recovering is necessary,

d. PARTS IN STOCK

(1) Aircraft airfoils and other exterior metal parts in stock need not have the camouflage paint removed.

(2) Fabric control surfaces in stock, or installed as replacements, need not be refinished for any color matching purposes.

e. PROPELLERS.

(1) Lustcrless black need not be applied to propellers unless required for antiglare purposes or corrosion resistance; however, the 4-inch yellow tip must be maintained as a safety measure. Repaired hollow steel blades from which any of the protective plating has been removed will be painted as outlined below, to protect against corrosion. Wood propellers will be painted black; how­ever, the 4-inch yellow tip must be maintained as a safety measure.

(2) If lusterless black is to be used for antiglare or corrosion resistance purposes, it will be accomplished by spraying the hub and each propeller blade while in a horizontal position, and retaining the propeller in this position until the paint materials have set. Over one light coat of zinc chromate primer, Specification No. AN-TT-P-656, one light coat black cellulose nitrate lusterless lacquer, will be applied and will extend to within 4 inches of the tip of the blade; this 4 inch tip section will receive one light coat of lusterless yellow lacquer. The propeller will then be checked for balance.

CAUTION Care will be exercised to mask any angular graduations on the propeller hub or blades. The space between the blade shank and barrel will be masked-off to prevent paint from contacting the seals.

(3) When necessary, three and four-blade metal propellers maybe lightly touched up between overhaul periods, while installed on the airplanes, Care will be exercised to apply proportionate amounts of paint to each blade to maintain proper blade bal­ance.

A conference was held at Mat. Lab. (WF), between February 23 and 27, 1945, to discuss the unsatisfactory condition of the Jet No. 622 finish on P-61 aircraft being received at overseas bases. It was decided that the problem was probably due to non-conformance to requirements and the use of unapproved enamel. Tests had shown that the enamel finish was definitely improved by use over a zinc chromate primer.

Mat. Lab. recommended that the Procurement Section (WF) should provide Northrop Aircraft with the latest list of approved specs, and that Northrop be requested to use a coat of zinc chromate primer before applying two coats of Jet No. 622 Lacquer to the P-61. They also recommended that the materials being used by Northrop be checked for conformance to spec, requirements.

Douglas A-26B-35-DL, 41-39456, aircraft E3-K of the 732nd BS, 453rd BG, Ninth Air Force. The A-26 had a very protracted development and did not start replacing the A-20s until lute 1944, despite the 1941 serial number. (March AFB Museum)

Large number of AAF aircraft seen on Iwo Jima on March 6,1945, includes twenty P-51s, four P-61sof the 548th NFS, two C-47s and one C-46, plus one Navy TBF, Mount Suribachi is prominent in the background. The P-61s are in gloss black, the P-51s arc in natural metal and the transports camouflaged. (USAF)

Curtiss C-46D-I0-CU, 44-77658, aircraft N5-D of the 313rd TCG, Ninth Air Force. It was seen at strip Y-32, Ophnven, Belgium, on March 24, 1945. It had just made an emergency landing after being hit by two 88mm shells while dropping US Army paratroopers over the Rhine at Wesel, Germany, during Operation VARSITY. (William L. Swisher)

A minor revision of Spec.98-24105-S, Amendment No. 2, was issued on March 18, 1946. However, all of the changes related to other spec, number changes except for further changes to the aircraft dope code markings (see Appendix В on aircraft maintenance markings.).

Revised version of ANA Bulletin No. 166, Gloss Colors, issued, June 1946.

A minor revision, ANA Bulletin No. 166a, was issued on June 6, 1946, which informed users that the earlier porcelain enamel panels were no longer available for distribution and that only cardboard enamel panels were now available. No changes were made to any of the standard gloss colors, which had been introduced in 1938.

New edition of T. O, 07-1-1 issued, June 1946.

A new edition of T, 0.07-1-1 was issued on June 7,1946, and became the last version to be produced by the AAF. It also introduced the long-lasting (still in use) method of indicating revisions by black vertical revision lines alongside the new or revised information. We will take advantage of this new feature by only printing information so marked. First was the preliminary note stating when the work was to be accomplished. This now read:

NOTE The work required herein (except paragraph 17.b.) will be accomplished as soon as practicable by all activities having the affected aircraft. The work directed in paragraph 17,b. will be accomplished prior to or at the next 100-hour inspection period by all activities within the continental limits of the United States having permanently assigned aircraft.

Consolidated XB-36-CF, 42-13570, made its first flight on August 8, 1946, and ultimately beat the XB-35 as the replacement for the B-29. Powered by six P & W R-4360 engines, it was also natural metal finish all over. (USAF)

On April 9, 1942, tests were run at Halifax, Nova Scotia, to check the visibility of PBY aircraft used for anti-submarine patrol low over water. One PBY was painted flat white, the second was unpainted and the third was in blue-gray finish. It was reported that the test proved unquestionably the effectiveness of white paint on aircraft used for anti-submarine work on sunny days.

As a result, HQ, 1st Bomber Command recommended that camouflage specs, should be changed to provide for the painting of the undersurfaces of anti-submarine aircraft with oyster white lacquer. The necessary materials should be provided to Bomber Command. This recommendation was supported by both the British and American submarine officers.

Further tests were run on April 21, 1942, and it was concluded that a glossy paint might improve the effectiveness, and that de-icer (boots) along wing and tail surfaces also needed to be white. (Note: the request for a white anti-submarine camouflage led to a long, foot­dragging, contest and caused a lot of hard feelings. Not until June 1943, did Materia! Command issue a final report on further tests of the white finish. By that time, it was immaterial, as responsibility for anti-submarine coastal patrols had been handed over to the US Navy. Full details of this can be found in the following pages).

j

11

s ил

гл

Martin B-26B-1-MA, 41-17707, aircraft number 76, was the 164th B-26B of 1,883 built. It is seen painted in the final Sea Search scheme of neutral gray upper surfaces and white lower surfaces. Note the white leading edges of all surfaces. This scheme was developed at Eglin Field. (USAF)

North American XB-28-NA, 40-3056, was developed to replace the B-25, but it was not adopted. It made its first flight in April 1942. The pre­war.’AAF markings are shown on the rudder, together with a very polished natural metal finish. (March AFB Museum)

The Director of Bombardment sent a memo to the CG., Anti-submarine Group, on November 19,1942, stating that extensive tests at the Air Force Proving Ground (Eglin Field) had shown that the best type of camouflage for anti-submarine aircraft was:

Ail undersurfaces and surface of airplane that was in shadow should be painted with Insignia White, No. 46, and all other surfaces Neutral Gray No. 43. A picture was enclosed showing the manner in which the two colors should be applied.

He requested that a study should be made as to the suitability of this type of camouflage for use in the Anti-submarine Command. If they had developed a more effective type of camouflage, he requested that they should forward the information as to the type of paint used and a diagram of the scheme used.

On November 23, 1942, HQ., Anti-submarine Command replied stating that extensive testing had been made on camouflage for submarine search, and a report had been submitted on August 31, 1942, to the Commmanding General, Air Forces Eastern Defense Command. The results obtained were varied, but in general the conclusions reached were generally the same as those reached by the Proving Ground. They felt, therefore, that adequate tests had been made, that the camouflage recommended by the Proving Ground be adopted without delay, and that a technical Order be expedited for the camouflage of all Anti-submarine Command aircraft.

On November 30, 1942, the Commanding Officers of the 25th and 26th Anti-submarine Wings were informed that the Dir. of Mil. Req. had issued authority to camouflage all tactical antisubmarine aircraft as follows:

Under Surfaces – Insignia White No. 4 Upper surfaces – Dark O. D. (no change)

They were also informed that a Technical Order would be published in the near future.

a. Organization insignia will be placed on each side of each lighter-than-air aircraft. The location for observation balloons will be on each side, halfway between the greatest diameterand the leading edges of the horizontal lobes. The locations for spherical balloons will be at points in line with and three feet from each end of the wording “U. S. ARMY.”

b. In no instance will the size of lighter-than-air insignia exceed 9 square feet. The insignia placed on each craft assigned to an organization will be uniform in size. However, this does not require that insignia of different organizations be of the same size.

c. The insignia for alt lighter-than-air aircraft will be painted on two-ply envelope fabric, code No. 101, and securely attached to the envelope with rubber cement. Each sheet of fabric will be neatly trimmed to the minimum size required, and, to insure adhesion, corresponding areas of the aluminum finish will be carefully removed from the envelopes with suitable wire brushes.

This version of the T. O. was the first to be typeset and printed in color. It included a complete set of the colors from Bulletin No. 41, including the addition of Sand, Shade No. 49. There were two further pages, covering the types of materials to be used for applying the camouflage markings and insignia (these have been omitted from this work as being too technical and of limited use). The great improve­ment over the previous versions showed the extent of its use within the AAF, and the industry that supplied the aircraft at this crucial point in the war. All subsequent issues reverted to being in only black and white.

Only two days later, a later version, T. 0.07-1-1A, had to be issued to correct the titles of Figures 1 and 2. These were now amended to read:

Figure 1 – Operation over Predominately Green Terrain Figure 2 – Basic Camouflage.

All references to Figures 1 and 2 in the first section of the T. O. were to be changed to agree with the amended titles (this was obviously a paste-up error in the production of the document).

Tests show that the newly standardized JAC olive drab did not meet the reflectance requirements. Testing continued to correct the problem. June 25,1943.

Numerous tests had been made by Eglin Field to determine the reflection factor of the standard dark olive drab camouflage paint, and they advised Mat. Com. (WF) on June 5, 1943, of the results. Eng. Div. (WF) used these test as a basis and found that the original Dark Olive Drab Shade No. 41 had a reflectance of 7.8, but that the new Olive Drab standardized by the JAC (without Mat. Com. (WF) assistance), had a reflectance of 9.4. This exceeded the recommended 8.0%, and testing was under way to reduce it to the required value.

Material Command Report on camouflaging of Anti-Submarine Aircraft, June 23,1943.

Report No. ENG-56-M-4531, dated June 23, 1943, was issued to report on the results of tests of various color arrangements of camou­flage paint on airplanes in flight, conducted at Langley Field, VA, between January 8-21,1943. It contained the following data:

The 1st Sea Search Attack Group provided five B-18 aircraft, with serial numbers 37-464,

37-465,37-561,37-574, and 37-621. Three of the B-18s were painted over their existing finish, while the other two were left in their existing colors. The test color schemes for each of these aircraft followed the paint boundaries shown in Figure 1, and were as follows:

(1) B-18 no. 37-464 was painted on all underneath surfaces (area “A”) in Shade No. 46 Insignia White camouflage enamel. Side and top areas (areas “B” and “C”) were finished in Flight Camouflage white enamel white (haze paint) applied in a pattern of graduated light reflectance values, over black camouflage enamel, to produce a bluish “haze” effect.

(2) B-18 no. 37-468 was painted over all exterior surfaces (areas “A, B, and C”) in flight camouflage white enamel (haze paint) applied in a pattern of graduated light reflectance values, over black camouflage enamel, to produce a bluish “haze” effect.

(3) B-18 no. 37-621 was painted on all underneath surfaces (area “A”) in Shade No. 46 Insignia White camouflage enamel, with the vertical control surfaces and side of the fuselage (area “B”) painted with Shade No. 43 Neutral Gray camou­flage lacquer. The top surfaces (area “C”) were left in the original Dark Olive Drab color.

(4) B-18 no. 37-561 was left in its original camouflage colors of Dark Olive Drab above and on the sides surfaces (areas “B and C”), with the lower surfaces in Neutral Gray (area “A").

(5) B-18 no. 37-574 was left in its original finish of Shade No. 47 Insignia White all over.

All of the test flights were made on days with unlimited ceiling, with normal haze conditions for the area and with widely scattered or no clouds. Aircraft were viewed from the ground while they were flying at altitudes of 2,000, 4,000, 6,000. and 10,000 feet, both directly overhead and at a distance of approximately one mile from the viewing point while flying in E-W and N-S directions. The relative effectiveness of the camouflage was observed on both approach and departure runs.

Conclusions: it was found that the most effective combination of camouflage schemes under all conditions was as follows:

a. Underneath surfaces, leading edges and “front view” areas – Shade No. 47 Insignia White.

b. Side (essentially vertical) surfaces – Shade No. 43 Neutral Gray.

c. Top surfaces – Shade No. 41 Dark Olive Drab.

The exact shade of gray used on the vertical surfaces was not critical, but it was recommended that very bright or very dark grays should not be used. Tests were also run by flying a B-17E, at 6,000 and 10,000 feet, above the camouflaged B-18s flying at 2,000 and

4.000 feet. It was found that none of the different camouflage schemes were best under all of the test conditions. It was also found that the haze painted airplanes did not have any camouflage characteristics which were better than at least one of the other schemes. The report finally recommended that the Anti-Submarine Command should paint its aircraft in the scheme described in the conclusions above.