Jennings Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) RAF Upper Heyford, 1969 Edited December 18, 2014 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Do you remember the photo of an F-4D in Vietnam that had the Gray paint in all the areas that were supposed to be Tan? (It is in an old Koku-fan Vietnam issue) this photo reminds me of that,,,,,,except that in your photo, you can see that scrap that stayed Tan on the stabilator. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trojan Thunder Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 <div>Interesting picture Jennings</div><div><br></div> <br>Do you remember the photo of an F-4D in Vietnam that had the Gray paint in all the areas that were supposed to be Tan? (It is in an old Koku-fan Vietnam issue)<br><br>this photo reminds me of that,,,,,,except that in your photo, you can see that scrap that stayed Tan on the stabilator.<br><br><br>Perhaps the stab was changed out after the repaint. I have seen a few of these trial schemes with standard coloured panels, nose cones, external tanks fitted during maintenance Quote Link to post Share on other sites
f4h1phantom Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Grey was painted over tan areas in 1967. Some examples could be seen still wearing it in 1968. This is based on studying pictures and the date when they were taken, so I stand to be corrected. There are plenty of pictures of them in both Vietnam and Europe, and also some stateside machines. It appears to have been a washable paint of sorts, as it faded very rapidly. When faded, it let the tan show trough aquiring a "mouse grey" effect (my idea of how to describe it). It appears that for some reason some areas of the airframe needed to have the paint removed before it faded (or washed away, or whatever), particularly the black "AF" on the tail sides and the two numbers below it, resulting in them being displayed inside a patch of the original tan paint. Sometimes it was removed from the entire tail. There were many variations, depending on the aircraft. I have never ever found anything mentioned in any book or publication about that "test" (?). Yet, a great number of airplanes received it. Why nobody has recorded anything about this "mod" is beyond me, but is something that has puzzled me for years! I think we had another post about that not long ago. Anyway, here are some pics that show the grey applied over tan: Even this well known picture shows the grey over tan areas. Note the area around the black letters and numbers on the tail has been cleaned up: Many more pictures can be found if you study them carefully and know what to look for. Hope this sheds some light on this "misterious" subject, but what I would really, really like to know is what the purpose of these tests were, who decided to implement the change and why it always went undetected, so to speak, and hence unexplained. Jorge. Edited December 18, 2014 by f4h1phantom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
f4h1phantom Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Here's another pic somebody uploaded here, IIRC, long ago: Another one: And two from the Osprey book [EDIT: it is a Schiffer Military history book, sorry for the confusion] on F-4 and F-105 MiG killers: Sometimes it is hard to see the grey, especially if the picture is color-shifted or not of the best quality. I'll post the Koku Fan pic when I can find it. Best, Jorge. Edited December 18, 2014 by f4h1phantom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I think it is more a matter of fresh tan applied over very faded tan than the original shade poping up through a gray top layer applied over the tan, but I stand to be corrected. Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Jorge, the Koku-Fan photo is just a different angle of your last picture, of FY-249. But, in the Koku-Fan photo, there is no "hint of tan" visible, it is an almost perfect coating of Gray, with that same patch of Light Gull Gray showing for the "AF-60" part of the Serial Number Quote Link to post Share on other sites
majortomski Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Having worked at a Depot for 11 years, methinks you folks give the humans that work there a higher than normal level of human G-A-S. They are humans and they make errors. Folks in the paint shops, esp. before OSHA/AFOSH became to be were not the highest skilled folks on the base. There's the example of the F-105s where all the SEA cammo colors are the right pattern but the wrong place, because that shift didn't know how to read a drawing. It just might be that the batch of paint they used at that paint shop had the right number on it but it was the wrong color. "I don't care if it looks different, this is the can of color I'm supposed to spray here, and I sprayed it there." We had 14 tankers grounded at Tinker because of fuel leaks. All of the leakers started after October first. The contract for the fuel tank sealant changed October first. The sealant had the same MIL Spec but no one bothered to read that the new contractor's mix of hardener to sealant was different. The mixing machine was now putting in too much sealant causing the stuff to cure in the freezers. DOZENS of fuel tank techs noticed the stuff was behaving weird but NO ONE reported it wasn't working! Depots are manned by sometimes less than normal people. Don't make too much out of an oddball paint scheme, they were just following the numbers. Edited December 18, 2014 by majortomski Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gene K Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Depots are manned by sometimes less than normal people. Don't make too much out of an oddball paint scheme, they were just following the numbers. Well, I also worked at Tinker, and I think you are selling some folks there short ... unless things have changed since the early nineties. All the work performed then, including the paint job, was inspected multiple times and corrected as needed. Gene K Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ThePhantomTwo Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 We had several F-4C's have the tan bleach out similar to the pics above,definitely not a gray bleed thru.I believe it's a matter of environment,quality of the paint or mixture of the paint or all the above.Nearly all the C's we had this happen to were jets we received from Kadena in 1979/1980. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 Has anyone ever seen any official document regarding the alleged grey camo, or are we just looking at ratty airplanes/poor paint quality? I suspect the latter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ThePhantomTwo Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I think it's the ratty camo/poor paint quality. I am seeing a bleached/faded tan in the pics, not a gray. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
f4h1phantom Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) I perfectly understand the skepticism. What I wrote is based on my studying pictures and I may be confusing things. I found the picture Rex was talking abut. I have it in two different books, the Model Art F-4 Phantom II part II modelling book and also on Koku Fan Illustrated No.21 Air War over Vietnam. I have scanned them and are reproduced below in that order, with the Schiffer book [see my edition of post #4] pic reproduced again at the bottom for easier comparison. To me, the ones in the japanese books are "cleaner" than the one in the Schiffer book, which is red-shifted making the grey look warmer. The latter may also be taken at a later date, when the grey had started to fade: Both magazines were published around the early eighties if I am not mistaken (can't see any dates printed on them) and this picture triggered my interest in the subject. Note I include the captions in case somebody who reads japanese finds some useful information there. In my opinion somebody INTENTIONALLY decided to test grey over tan areas in 1967, but that's just my opinion as no confirmation can be found anywhere. Cheers to all, Jorge. Edited December 18, 2014 by f4h1phantom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Yep, Jorge, that has always been my thought since seeing that pic. (you're right, sometime in the eighties) The trouble is that I don't know of any spec calling out for that light blue-gray (with that tiny patch of LGG) in place of the tan. But the complete absence of any scraps of tan have made me want to build that bird for a long time. They only thing that has stopped me is the longgggg line of other models just as interesting that is ahead of it. but, FY-249 has always sort of stood out as the perfect illustration for the "build what you see" folks added: having 4 Sparrows, a gunpod, two Falcons(or 4?) and no outerwing pylons doesn't hurt the cause one bit, besides Edited December 18, 2014 by Rex Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ThePhantomTwo Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I perfectly understand the skepticism. What I wrote is based on my studying pictures and I may be confusing things. I found the picture Rex was talking abut. I have it in two different books, the Model Art F-4 Phantom II part II modelling book and also on Koku Fan Illustrated No.21 Air War over Vietnam. I have scanned them and are reproduced below in that order, with the Schiffer book [see my edition of post #4] pic reproduced again at the bottom for easier comparison. To me, the ones in the japanese books are "cleaner" than the one in the Schiffer book, which is red-shifted making the grey look warmer. The latter may also be taken at a later date, when the grey had started to fade: Both magazines were published around the early eighties if I am not mistaken (can't see any dates printed on them) and this picture triggered my interest in the subject. Note I include the captions in case somebody who reads japanese finds some useful information there. In my opinion somebody INTENTIONALLY decided to test grey over tan areas in 1967, but that's just my opinion as no confirmation can be found anywhere. Cheers to all, Jorge. Not sure if it would have been intentional, given it's a combat zone.Hate to find out the plane tested stuck out like a sore thumb and get shot down just for the sake of "let's try this and see if it works". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 To me, the ones in the japanese books are "cleaner" than the one in the Schiffer book, which is red-shifted making the grey look warmer. I have no knowledge or insight into the history of the paint schemes in question but I will state the (few) Schiffer published books in my collection suffer from consistently poor photo reproduction (among other things). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
majortomski Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Well, I also worked at Tinker, and I think you are selling some folks there short ... unless things have changed since the early nineties. All the work performed then, including the paint job, was inspected multiple times and corrected as needed. Gene K Gene I was there '77 till late '88. Things were very scary back then. http://newsok.com/11-million-lawsuit-filed-over-crash/article/2160305 Then another A-7D crashed on take off when the wing folded. When the TAC accidident board asked the rigging crew if they followed the TO the answer was; "What's a TEE OH?" Edited December 19, 2014 by majortomski Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 There's the example of the F-105s where all the SEA cammo colors are the right pattern but the wrong place, because that shift didn't know how to read a drawing. No, that was done intentionally - one in (I think) three SEA-camouflaged F-105's was officially required to have the pattern reversed. Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Here is another one: http://366th-tfw.net/Knudsen%20pics/037.JPG Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
the_baphomet_00 Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 No, that was done intentionally - one in (I think) three SEA-camouflaged F-105's was officially required to have the pattern reversed. Cheers, Andre Hi Andre.. do you got any Thud pic with the reversed pattern available? TIA.- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
f4h1phantom Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Here is another one: http://366th-tfw.net/Knudsen%20pics/037.JPG Jari Thanks Jari, I didn't have that one! I was checking dates and found the F-4Es I posted arrived in Vietnam in 1969 so, as your picture seems to confirm, the "practice"(?) spanned from 1967 to at least as far as 1969. Jorge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Hi Andre.. do you got any Thud pic with the reversed pattern available? TIA.- I think there are a few pics in my Osprey "F-105 Thunderchief Units of the Vietnam War" book. Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ben Brown Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Hi Andre.. do you got any Thud pic with the reversed pattern available? TIA.- The 3rd & 4th Thuds from the left have the reversed camo scheme: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/F-105Ds_4TFW_Takhli_Dec1965.jpg The Thud next to the uncamouflaged jet has the reverse pattern: http://www.cavok.com.br/blog/wp-contents/uploads/2013/04/F-105_b-66_vaq136-com.jpg The quick way to tell is the standard scheme has a big swatch of tan on the starboard side of the nose, while the reversed scheme has more tan on the port side of the nose. Ben Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Nice pics, Ben. Here's another one that shows botn variations side by side: http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F105s333.jpg Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GEH737 Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Personally - I see faded tan on those F-4's. I think it's optics, lighting and the printing process. Here's a picture I took around 1980. Old, faded tan on the left, fairly fresh on the right. We had jets with tan that was a lot more faded (Nevada sunlight) - but this picture shows the contrast pretty well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.