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.