Painted on Canopies

michaelharadon · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:33 pm

Why didn't the painting of canopy outlines beneath the cockpit on the underside of contemporary fighter aircraft catch on more than it did? Thanks to all those who reply!

Holedigger · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:04 pm

Presumption of most air combat occurring beyond visual range? Just my guess, right up there with "Guns? We don't need guns, we have missiles!"

Is the A-10 the only one out there using it or are there others?

markcia · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:10 pm

The CF-18s (the F-18 for our friends south of the border) of the Canadian air force wear those markings. I think it's primarily for ground attack decoy. When the aircraft is on knife edge as it's whipping by you and you are attempting to cover up you may perceive it to be turning in an incorrect direction.

Mark

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:21 pm

It's surprisingly very effective during BFM.

All it has to do is cause you to hesitate....pause for a second or two while you look for other visual cues that will tell you if the jet is turning toward or away from you. In BFM, seconds mean angles, and angles mean the difference between being killed and survival; the difference between being offensive or neutral.

The times I've fought Hornets and Hogs with them, I've been caught off guard by it at least once.

lestweforget · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:21 pm

All Canadian CF-18's, some USMC Harriers I think and quite a lot of Russian stuff use it. I think some of the Aggressor aircraft were painted in this way also because of the Russian link, perhaps someone could clarify this? Good link and some effective pictures here http://www.hyperstealth.com/ADP/index.html Would be interesting to find out the first aircraft/airforce to use it.

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:21 pm

pretty clever strategy. i would guess it affects depth perception & peripheral vision of a possibly attacking pilot lining up for the shot!!

michaelharadon · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:56 pm

Randy Haskin wrote:

It's surprisingly very effective during BFM.

All it has to do is cause you to hesitate....pause for a second or two while you look for other visual cues that will tell you if the jet is turning toward or away from you. In BFM, seconds mean angles, and angles mean the difference between being killed and survival; the difference between being offensive or neutral.

The times I've fought Hornets and Hogs with them, I've been caught off guard by it at least once.

So...why don't all our fighters wear them?

Bill Walker · **Posted:** Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:50 am

Lestweforget: I've been told by CF guys that the CF-18s were first, but I have no idea if that is correct.

michaelharadon: maybe a case of Not Invented Here?

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:58 am

Disruptive and even what you might call 'distracting' camouflage goes back to W.W.I aviation, as does stealth technology. In the Great War oval roundels and mis-positioned markings were tried as well as dazzles and asymmetric markings.

However I'm not aware of having heard of anything earlier than the CF-18s in terms of dummy canopies.

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:19 am

the naval ship camo i know about, but this is entirely new to me.

CH2Tdriver · **Posted:** Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:04 am

JDK wrote:

Disruptive and even what you might call 'distracting' camouflage goes back to W.W.I aviation, as does stealth technology. In the Great War oval roundels and mis-positioned markings were tried as well as dazzles and asymmetric markings.

However I'm not aware of having heard of anything earlier than the CF-18s in terms of dummy canopies.

Well, while not a canopy per se.....Camo'd P-38's had their noses painted silver on occasion. It was intended to fool enemy pilots into thinking that the ship wasn't a fighter, but one of the unarmed glass nose recon versions. I wonder how effective it was?

Pete

michaelharadon · **Posted:** Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:11 am

A propos of who was first, did Keith Ferris originate the idea? And, did he have a real hard time selling it to the Air Force, which is why Canadian planes wore them first?

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:18 am

As far as I'm aware, Keith Ferris first applied the idea to an F-15 and then an F-16 in the late 1970's. It didn't catch on for various reasons, but there is a photo in one of my F-15 books of an F-15A at Luke with the false canopy painted on it in May of 1977 that is credited to Charles Mayer. It's an interesting pic because behind it is a KC-97L and to it's left are a pair of C-141As, an F-111, and a Vulcan is barely visible under the fuselage.

RickH · **Posted:** Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:19 am

The false canopy was a big part of the experimental Heater-Ferris paint schemes. These schemes were applied by both Navy and USAF squadrons.

False canopies were to be found on F-4Ds, F-4S, A-4s, F-14s, A-10s, as well as the CF-18s. They date back to the late 70s, early 80s.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:33 am

CH2Tdriver wrote:

Well, while not a canopy per se.....Camo'd P-38's had their noses painted silver on occasion. It was intended to fool enemy pilots into thinking that the ship wasn't a fighter, but one of the unarmed glass nose recon versions. I wonder how effective it was?

Pete

I'm pretty sure that was mainly the 20th Fighter Group. They had the Droop Snoot bombardier ships and wanted to protect them, so, they made it look like all of the P-38s had that line across the nose so it would be harder for an enemy aircraft to tell that one of the planes was unarmed. I still remember one of the 20th FG guys talking about what a difference it might've made if the AF had invested in a large number of P-38 squadrons with bombs lined up behind the Droop Snoots. Once they dropped their bombs they were able to fight their own way home. Cheaper in manpower and possibly just as effective.

Ryan

Warbird Information Exchange

Painted on Canopies

Who is online