Visibility of Jet No. 622 paint in day operations clarified, September 1944

In a letter dated September 11, 1944, the Production Engineering Section (WF) informed the Bombardment Requirements Division (Washington, DC), that there was little difference in the visibility of Jet No. 622 camouflage in daylight from that of an unpainted, bare – metal aircraft. Aircraft seen from the ground were usually darker than the sky, an indication that the gloss black finish would make little difference in daytime.

Martin B-26, 42-97783(7), aircraft 23, Yellow, Red propeller bosses. “Thumper II”, of the 441st BS, 320th BG, Twelth Air Force. (TJSAF via Gerry R. Markgraf)

Consolidated B-24H-21-FO, 42-94918, aircraft “O” of 493rd BG, 3rd Air Division, seen at strip A-IO, Carentan, Normandy, on September 26, 1944. In standard dark olive drah and neutral gray finish, the group colors on the outer face of the vertical tails are bottom one-third red, remainder white. This was the last Eighth Air Force BG to become operational, on June 6,1944. It was converted to B-17 aircraft starting in August, 1944, so its use of the B-24 lasted barely three months. (William L. Swisher)

The Jet No. 622 paint added about 150 lbs to the weight of a B-29, but they felt that this would be counteracted by the increased smoothness of the finish,

(B-29s used the gloss black finish while serving with the new Twentieth Air Force in the Pacific – author).

Douglas service document details requirements for Removal of Camouflage and Enamel Finishes, October 1944.

The following document was issued by Douglas in a service bulletin and details what a job it was to remove camouflage finishes from previously painted aircraft, After reading the details, it is obvious why it was not done very often.

Curtiss P-40N-30-CL, 44-7318, seen in late 1944, still in production! (Nick Williams)

Curtiss C-46A-25-CC, 41-24698, lands at a 14th Air Force field in China late in 1944. In the foreground is Curtiss P-40K-5-CU, serial unknown, aircraft “255” of the Flying Tigers unit. Stripes on the rear fuselage denote a squadron commander. (IISAF)

Stripping. Removal of Camouflage and Enamel Finishes.

Removal of camouflage finishes and zinc chromate primers from metal surfaces is a headache regardless of the process used. The following, however, has the advantage of being less injurious to the metal surfaces and of minimizing work for ground crews.

Materials

1. Turco paint remover (L-713C): This remover is toxic and contains ingredients which are harmful to the eyes and skin. Workmen must be protected from contact with the stripper by wearing caps, goggles, gloves, aprons, and other clothes which will give complete protection.

2. DuPont acetate dope (5306) or acetate butyrate dope (AN-D-1).

3. Cellulose nitrate dope and lacquer thinner (AN-TT-T-256).

4. Ethyl acetate (AN-O-E-758).

5. Kraft wrapping paper (40 pound): The resistance of this paper to the remover may be considerably increased by impregnating it with acetate dope. Run the paper through a container filled with acetate dope (5306) having a viscosity of 45 to 50 seconds (measured by a No. 3 Zahn cup, while the dope is at a temperature of 25°C). Remove all excess dope with a rubber scraper and allow the paper to dry at least 1/2 hour before rolling it up and storing it for use.

6. Scotch masking tape (1- and 2-inch).

7. Waterproof cloth (AAF16094, Type 2, Class A).

Republic P-47D-23-RA, 43-25753 (the last aircraft of block 23), of the 91st FS, 81st FG, 14th Air Force in China, late 1944. The squadron marking is the black diagonal stripe across the latl(USAF)

AStinson L-5-VW, 42-98852, is seen over Burma’s very inhospitable terrain. It is still finished with the 1943 medium green blotches, though this is now late 1944. (IJSAF)