The Importance of "Correctly Incorrect" Paint Schemes

[Noha307]

I was just reading a blog post about the National Air and Space Museum's restoration of its V-1 missile and it included the following section:

Since we had no information as to what German paint might originally have been on the components, Chris Reddersen advocated a mismatched camouflage scheme, as is seen in some historic photos. Since the major fuselage and engine sections were often made by different manufacturers and only put together during final assembly, the Luftwaffe green and sky-blue patterns sometimes did not match up at the join lines. I was fine with this idea, as was my successor as curator of early rockets and missiles, Colleen Anderson. After painting the components in a dark red primer, he applied the blue all over the missile, as was German practice, and then added the dark green patterns on top.

(Source: National Air and Space Museum)

I find the decision particularly interesting as an example of how a decision on how an object is restored influences the way people will interpret it. In the case of the V-1, it's a visceral reminder of the harried state of the late-war German aviation industry as well as, as mentioned at the end of the blog post, the role that slave labor played in its production. Its imperfect nature also implicitly subverts the myth of German wonder weapons, by illustrating how - even if the claimed technological superiority of Nazi weapons was true - it was still undercut by conditions of their manufacture.

Perhaps the subject is on my mind because just yesterday I wrote a wrote something to explain to visitors why our museum's B-25 looks so beat up. While the short answer is because it had exaggerated fake wear and exhaust streaks applied for its part in Catch-22 to metaphorically represent the war weariness of the main character, the larger importance is that it now provides a starting point to explain to visitors that aircraft did not look pristine. From there, the subject can be expanded to illustrate how the tempo of operations and exigencies of wartime meant that certain tasks were deprioritized. The last step is to then connect it what life was like for the airmen and mechanics. How the last thing on the crews' minds when they returned from a mission was the condition of the paint on the aircraft. How instead they would have been looking forward to some warm food, maybe a good night's sleep and, if they were lucky, a slight bit of downtime before going out and doing it again the next day. How the mechanics were busy patching flak holes, towing belly-landed airplanes off of the runway and overhauling run out engines. (I have in the back of my head the last-minute-fix-before-takeoff scene in Masters of the Air or the hangar deck in Battlestar Galactica for those who have seen it.) To take the concept to its logical extreme, one could even choose to represent where one aircraft was built from two, as in the cases of the B-17G Little Miss Mischief or the F9F, The Blue Tail Fly

The author of the V-1 piece acknowledges this aspect in a previous article about the restoration of NASM's V-2, when he wrote:

They also removed a lot of body filler applied in 1976 to disguise the dings and dents in the fuselage. I decided that only the largest of the holes would be refilled, both to keep out dust and to improve its appearance. But the many remaining imperfections preserve the reality of an artifact that was dimpled by spot welding during manufacturing, but also roughly handled after capture by the United States. The perennial question of Museum visitors, "Why does it look so dented?", will return in force after the rocket is reinstalled.

(Source: National Air and Space Museum)

To take another example, using the museum's Corsair's wings as a visual aid, it is interesting to relate that Corsairs were sometimes seen with what appeared to be "abstract art" on the wing. To explain how, as described by a HyperScale post, this was a scrambled roundel that was the result of ammunition boxes being pre-loaded for combat operations. How three factors - the interchangeability of five of the six the boxes, the fact that the top of the boxes is the upper surface of the wing and the positioning of the roundel on the wing - came together to allow this unusual situation to take place. Then, by analogizing that its the aviation equivalent of sewer lids that are reinstalled at an incorrect angle so that the road striping that has been painted over them no longer lines up with the markings on the adjacent asphalt, the visitor can connect it to their own experience in the modern day and understand for themselves why the past is not as idealized as we often think of it.

Depicting a B-17 with a mismatched vertical stabilizer, as the National Museum of the United States Air Force did with the Memphis Belle, offers an opportunity to touch on the difficulties of organizing a nationwide logistics chain and, by extension the sheer scale of the "Arsenal of Democracy". It can demonstrate how the difference, in part the result of subcontracting, is illustrative of the need for standards, for instance the AN system of technical orders, so that mistakes of this type don't slow down production.*

Doing things "correctly incorrect" is not just about being authentic for authenticities' sake, but also accurately representing the times and conditions in which the aircraft operated. (For more examples, see the Accurate Markings Matter thread.)

* I'm seeing conflicting information as to why the vertical stabilizer was a different color. One comment claims it was because they were painted by the subcontractor before delivery, while NMUSAF's video about the markings seems to imply that it was due to the paint fading at different rates.

[Spitty]

MkVIII Spitfire MV154 was repaired and repainted here in Australia with originality in mind.RAAF Tropical Spitfires had to be hastily repainted in Foliage Green to suit the north Australian countryside.In that instance serial numbers and various warning labels were pained over.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=858002783154466

[Ken]

I study USAF Skyraiders and there seems to be an excess of mis-matched panels, color shade differences, flubbed stencils, and other oddities. I'm ok with keeping the authenticity, but I do think that there should be some mention of this if a museum chooses to recreate the error.

Ken

[kalamazookid]

I've run into this as a modeler with D-Day stripes. Orders called for stripes to be of a specified width, yet it is obvious from photos that there was no consistency from airframe to airframe. I'm currently modeling a P-51 that I've found photos of with three different configurations of D-Day stripes on the fuselage at various points - all of the same airframe with the same serial at different points in its service. One of the photos clearly shows one of the white stripes being about two-thirds the width of the other stripes. Further, the stripes do not match the other aircraft in the same squadron, and none of the aftermarket decal sheets match the photos. It makes for some difficult decision making and I imagine there are similar decisions warbird owners have to make when deciding how to depict their aircraft. Do you try to match the order or the photo?

Stencils are another issue. Close-up photos, some in color, reveal no stenciling where specifications show there should be. Did it wear off? Was it painted over? Was it simply not applied?

My personal opinion is that it is folly to assume aircraft paint schemes matched specifications and directives to a T. The crews did the best they could with what they had and there is plenty of evidence of variation from airframe to airframe. When I find inconsistencies in information and photos, I default to what I think looks the coolest - but the stakes are lower in 1/48th scale .

[JohnB]

As usual, care should be taken to not "over do" things...weathering, wear or "factory" mismatched panels or components. It's true whether you are representing something in full or 1:48th scale.

After volunteering at a museum for four years and interacting daily with the "average" visitor who is not a history or aviation buff, I'd suggest moderation in making items look bad/worn/distressed.

Why?
Their visit may be their only up close experience with warbirds. If they see something that looks like the aircraft was poorly made or maintained, they will take that idea away with them.
In other words, they likely won't put the wear, even if appropriate, into proper context.

I'd rather have them leaving with the (incorrect) impression that all warbirds were spotless, than with the idea that the aircraft were poorly built ("Why does it have dents?") or maintained.

And of course I'm making a point that the average airworthy or even static warbird is in a different class than the NASM's "as built" captured V-1 which is an altogether different sort of artifact where its hasty/slave labor workmanship and finish is a huge part of its provenance.


With that attitude, I have never been a fan of the nose art/nickname on the P-51D at the NASM Mall location.
"Will it Run?", gives visitors the idea that the Mustang was a flying jalopy, ill designed or maintained in marginal condition.
Again, as historians and history buffs WE, may appreciate the original intent of the nickname, but the average public visitor may not have the context and go away with an incorrect idea or opinion.

[Noha307]

I do think that there should be some mention of this if a museum chooses to recreate the error.

Agreed. On that note, here's the label that I mentioned working on in my initial post:

After volunteering at a museum for four years and interacting daily with the "average" visitor who is not a history or aviation buff, I'd suggest moderation in making items look bad/worn/distressed.

That's a very good point. I try to always state that the wear on our B-25 was overdone for the production.

I'd rather have them leaving with the (incorrect) impression that all warbirds were spotless, than with the idea that the aircraft were poorly built ("Why does it have dents?") or maintained.

Not an unfounded criticism either. When our airplane attended Thunder Over Michigan in 2021 all of the B-25s were parked in a line for public viewing when they weren't performing. My boss told me a story about how a woman who pulled him aside and said that we needed to take better care it because it looked so bad in comparison to all of the others. I like to joke that I hope he said thank you, but you're correct that some sort of explanation is necessary. (There's also an anecdote about us giving away some of our leftover t-shirts with the old "Axis Nightmare" nose art to a German A400 crew that was visiting, but that's another story... )

The good news is that the worn aircraft are still uncommon, so even if visitors do encounter one, it will be the the exception rather than the rule.

Also, the interesting part is that, some of them were less-than-perfectly built. Specifically, cases of misaligned or over-driven rivets come to mind. Whenever we come across one during a restoration, there's usually a few jokes about the workmanship of Rosie the Riveter, which actually led me to an interesting thought. Many of the wartime factory workers did do a less than stellar job, but it has nothing to do with their gender. Instead, when you consider the vast expansion in workforce that was needed during the war in such a short period of time, there was no way to give the new workers the same thorough level of training that the prewar hires received. Quality suffered because there were so many untrained workers. Consider that, in the first sixteen and a half months of the war, nearly 20,000 Americans died in workplace accidents - more than were killed by enemy action in the same period.[1] By 1945, just over 200,000 had been either killed or permanently disabled.[2] A significant portion of that can be attributed to inexperience with equipment.

Now, it is important to note that, in most cases, the problems are only cosmetic. There's no affect on the functionality of the airplane, it's just that rivet lines are slightly wavy. Now, for instance, I'm familiar with the claims that Brewster-built Corsairs had multiple defects from poor quality production. However, I have also heard from good authority that those claims were overblown, if not incorrect. (The fact that it was a poorly managed company, however, is true.) If the latter is true, then, to your point, being careful with how "imperfect" airplanes are presented is critical because it can only add fuel to that fire.*

Furthermore, in some airplanes, good quality manufacture was critical. For example, my understanding is that the laminar flow wing on the P-51 demanded a very smooth surface to work correctly. So much so that apparently some crews took to filling the gaps between panels.[3][4]

* Researching some of the posts in this thread has been an exercise in self-doubt and fact checking. Going to double check facts that I had sort of always taken for granted has led to going down a rabbit-hole of claims and counterclaims. It's something you could spend an entire day on. So, while my goal is to be factually correct and that is critically important for the arguments I am making, I also didn't want to get bogged down in the "details" because I have limited time. So, to this end, I have tried to hedge my statements of fact. If anyone wants to chime in and prove me wrong, please do. As I have said before, I want to be correct, not right. I just don't want to get too off topic.

[sandiego89]

Somewhat related I am a big fan of the "conserved" examples such as the Black Widow and Me-163 at Udvar hazy and the Ryan Fireball at Chino and I believe the Pavelow MH-53 at Warner Robins to name a few.

[Spitty]

See an original WW2 issue early BOB MkI Spitfire and you would have a heart attack with its build quality...

[JohnB]

See an original WW2 issue early BOB MkI Spitfire and you would have a heart attack with its build quality...

I would be interested in seeing that.
I guess we'll need a tall ladder in Chicago.

So, was the workmanship sloppy (perhaps because of a production learning curve as opposed to carelessness, remember before the Spitfire, Supermarine was hardly in the business of mass production) or were they pretty much hand built...where the concept of interchangeable parts was more of a theory than reality?

[Steve Nelson]

I recall talking to a docent at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo about the restoration of the XP-55 Ascender. The restoration staff exhaustively documented the placement of every stencil on the airplane, and the Smithsonian required them to be repainted exactly as they were originally, even though some were crooked or misaligned. Apparently, there were some (possibly just one..I don't recall the specific details) who wanted to "correct" the stenciling by making it all perfectly straight.

they pretty much hand built...where the concept of interchangeable parts was more of a theory than reality?

I was chatting with a restoration guy at the Canadian Warplane Heritage many years ago. He was working on the Bristol Bolingbroke project, and said that was exactly the sort of problems they were having. They were using sections from several different airframes, and found that many rivet and bolt holes wouldn't line up, because those holes had originally been drilled by hand, rather than using a jig. Precise enough for an individual airframe, but if you wanted to swap sections around it could cause some major headaches.

SN

[Spitty]

See an original WW2 issue early BOB MkI Spitfire and you would have a heart attack with its build quality...

I would be interested in seeing that.
I guess we'll need a tall ladder in Chicago.

So, was the workmanship sloppy (perhaps because of a production learning curve as opposed to carelessness, remember before the Spitfire, Supermarine was hardly in the business of mass production) or were they pretty much hand built...where the concept of interchangeable parts was more of a theory than reality?

Speed of manufacture and getting them in the air was more important than laser level straight rivet lines.They didnt even measure rivet centers,just did it by eye.Early pre war Spits they took time to get things right but with invasion a possibility a lot of things were overlooked.Even on later MkIX,s you still found rivet tails bent over like nails.
Interchangeability they just fitted whatever worked.Why cowls and removable panels all had the aircraft serial number painted on the inside so it went back on same plane..Plus due to multiple sub contractors and cottage Industry workshops building parts fitment was a lottery.

[ZRX61]

See an original WW2 issue early BOB MkI Spitfire and you would have a heart attack with its build quality...

I would be interested in seeing that.
I guess we'll need a tall ladder in Chicago.

So, was the workmanship sloppy (perhaps because of a production learning curve as opposed to carelessness, remember before the Spitfire, Supermarine was hardly in the business of mass production) or were they pretty much hand built...where the concept of interchangeable parts was more of a theory than reality?

If you take a P51 part it will have correctly sized round holes for the screws/bolts etc & a corresponding round hole in the part it mounts to.
The part will fit any other P51.

British parts will have a 5/8x3/16in long slot running 90deg to an identical slot in the part it fastens to. This gives plenty of room to get the two pieces into a vague semblance of alignment, sometimes with the suitable application of percussive adjustment.
The part night not even fit back onto the same aircraft you removed it from just an hour ago.

[Spitty]

So so correct its not funny but you still call it fun as its a challenge but slowly dive into frustration and insanity...
I did a fully correct,hand built Spit cockpit from spinner to just behind radio hatch in about 4.5 years from scratch.
I did a fully correct,hand built P51 cockpit from firewall to Sta 146 in about 6 months part time from scratch...

[Noha307]

Coincidentally, someone over on the aviation subreddit posted about a week ago how they like the look of "worn out" aircraft.

[JohnTerrell]

The paint scheme on the Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum's P-40C is a good example of this. As quoted from the FHCAM Facebook page:

"Accurately replicating a warbird’s paint scheme sometimes means adding in the imperfections. A close look at the tail of the FHC’s P-40C Tomahawk reveals a bit of a mess when it comes to the constancy of the camouflage lines. The rudder and fairings don’t match up. That is because the plane was painted at the Curtiss factory in manageable pieces and then assembled. Looking at historic photos of P-40s serving in China, FHC staffers were able to develop an apparently flawed, but accurate camouflage scheme."




And perhaps still a bit on topic, here's a close-up detail shot I took in 2014 of the tail of Fagen Fighters' P-40K, with the "accurately-imperfect" chalk-outlined, hand-painted tail number. Of course the chalk lines have since washed away.