Fokker Streaky Camouflage Fabric - Duration Test

continuing

I do have questions, though, about the images.

1. The “top coat” that you say is almost worn away can be appreciated as the dark honey-colored “drips” and specular reflections? *If so, I would ask if this is the way a (linseed oil?) finish coat would actually degrade. *The globular, seemingly smooth-edged, “dripply” character of these areas does not seem to accord as the consequence of a “flaking off” of the adjacent film. *Is it possible, therefore, that this “residual” film represents congealed motor oil?
2. I cannot make out in either scan the area(s) you suggest represent the underlying, bare linen fabric (which you see as unbleached). *I would be interested if Dave took any photographs of the rear (obverse) side of the sample?
3. It is unclear to me which areas represent an underlying blue and which an overlying green. *Coould you perhaps “annotate” a version of Dave’s .jpg indicating which is which? * Was the ordering of the various color layers clearly appreciable to Dave on personal inspection?

Last, although I commend your spirit of experimentation, I am concerned about whether you are not painting yourself into a corner (pun intended) with some of your hypotheses, particularly that regarding underside “gray.” *Despite Barfoot-Saunt’s use of the term “grayish blue,” the historical record regarding earlier Fokkers and IGAS aircraft generally subsequent to mid-summer ’16 appears to favor such terms as “sky blue,” “light” or “pale blue,” or “light sky blue.” *The IWM sample accords as far as I am concerned with this general family of hues. *Additionally, it seems to me difficult to explain the existing color as the result of the same process that turns greens into browns.

Best wishes and, again, many thanks for the posting of the fabric scans,
Stefen

[AchimEngels]

Hello Stefen,

It becomes a very interesting discussion and I really appreciate your input. Especially in respect with bringing my feet down again * .

I will try to respond in detail here to your post.

FIRST
I think it is important not to only talk about any sample held by any museum without making them, at least in a photographic way, available to all others. I am also in debt to Dave Watts who provided them for my use and the benefit to all of us.

SECOND
Yes, the very small size of the fragment, if genuine, does not allow to form a figure on how the total appearance was. The main interesting thing is that we can try to learn from these how it was done (the colors can not be reproduced whithout a chemical analysis) . Apart from that - as I mentioned earlier in this thread - we should always keep in mind that this type of color application never produced a look of an aircraft that was the same another one looked like.

I do not think the top piece does look like one of those more solid areas of one color hue as you suggested when viewed from a more common distance. I rather more feel this was taken from an area that revealed a more "linen" color (please ignore the more brown appearance for a moment) like seen in my larger experimental sample in the range of the "7".

THIRD
The shifting of the colors towards a brown is one of my basic points here, although I have to repeat that I do not think this was actually a pigmented paint. I also think that this actually when viewed from a distance appeared like a "mainly" green aircraft as it was described. Just imagine a small piece of 2 inch square cut from my larger experimental piece immediately above the "17". If you take a look at this small piece alone you will well overlook the overall green appearance of the entire thing.


Just to illustrate what the IWM piece would be - a very small window to see the world....

FOURTH
You got me wrong on this. With respect to the color that was applied to the underside of the aircraft as a floor to sky camouflage, I think this was applied to the top of the aircraft also, this time in the same way the green was applied. I mean, not as a overall application , but rather more in the same practise as single strokes. This generates:

Areas of solid green strokes, fading out...

Areas of solid underside color strokes, fading out...

These strokes have been applied in a wet in wet practise on a immediately previously applied coat of a clear paint which was made from a material that turned into a brownish hue. This way the paint scheme would generate areas that would look like the IWM piece.

What we have here in my opinion was a doped unbleached linen, covered by a coat of clear unpigmented paint onto which in a wet in practise the green was applied. The green paint must have used the same solvent as the clear first coat (see the thin lines). The IWM piece represents a piece of fabric taken from a location where the green was fading out already. The brown was a not intended color hue that was there, although not to that degree as seen today, back in those days already.

Actually the IWM piece is in no way a thing that would suggest the use of the underside paint as part of the top camouflage scheme. I have other reasons why I think it was that way.

Just for the files, let me repeat step by step how I think the paint was carried out at Fokker:

1. The unbleached linen was first treated with the dope until it was tight enough and the surface was regularly covered enough.

2. The whole area was covered with a coat of clear paint. (This practise might have come from he time of the "uncolored" monoplanes still to reach a very smooth surface). This paint was probably a oil paint that was drying slowly. To speed up the drying process something was added. This supplement might have caused a shift of the clear paint into a darker brownish hue. (This would also explain the darker appearance of the E-types).

3. While this clear coat was still wet, the same clear paint was used, but this time pigmented with the underside hue to apply strokes on the top side.

4. While those two "coats" have still been wet the Green (which was in turn the clear paint with green pigments) was allied in strokes.

When the whole thing was dry, the lettering have been added.

When the factory and the military numbers have been dried, the whole was covered by a weather proofing top coat of a clear varnish.


Continued......

[AchimEngels]

Continuing...

Now let me answer your question:

1. Yes, those very small and specular reflections are the remains of a top coat.

I do not know if a lineseed varnish would degrade that way since I have not yet observed such a piece treated that way that long....

I have asked the IWM to forward a copy of the chemical analysis that might probably be made from this. It would tell us more. In case there was not such a analysis carried out, I offered to do one for them, but I do not think they will take the offer.

As long as I am lacking this information, I have to go on and guess that it actually was not a lineseed thing. It was most probably something that Dan-San named a copal varnish. I think it was not a copal, since copal is a natural resin that was hard to obtain in those days of wartime Germany. I think it was a semiliar thing that was used to paint the airscrews with, a boat varnish. This would become rather strong over the years and would flake off that way when applied on a paint that was based on lineseed for instance.

So my guess is that the first clear paint and the colors applied were based on something like lineseed while the top varnish was made of something different that was not that sticking on the oil painted surface.

I do not think it was motor oil.

2. The actual linen color is visible at the edges:



The areas at the edges do not feature flaked away paint, but rather more the dope was flaked away and the on top laying paint was lost with it. I do not see anything of the paint being flaked off alone leaving the doped unbleached linen.

I do not think Dave took photographs of the reverse side, but he might have seen it and can contribute his answer here.

3. Done above. As I said the piece does not feature any blue underlaying. Dave, could you answer the second part of his question?


Last

I hope I do not! *

I agree with you on the contemporary use of those terms, but I see no reason why a turquoise should be painted to the underside of an aircraft. This is one of the last colors I see when looking up into the skies. This in connection with the use of the terms "sky blue", "pale blue", "light", "grayish" blue...and so on, does not make me feel like a turquoise was ever seen, described or applied. I would indeed love to see a chemical analysis of the IWM turquoise underside paint, just to see what it is composed of and how it would change in the decades compared to its fresh look. I really do not think that the turquoise - which is obviously observable at the IWM - was the way it looked like then.

However, I could well be wrong!!!! *???

Achim.

Good evening, Achim--

Thanks for your lengthy reply with the inclusion of the annotated scan. *I will reply in greater detail; however, I thought the following experiment in creative computer graphics might be of some interest. *I shifted the color balance of your annotated scan applying minimal reduction in Red and Blue and an increase in Green; *additionally, I "restored" the missing (varnish?) top coat with an overlay of 5% light yellow-orange--as well as resizing the image to approximate the actual dimensions of what all this fuss is about (it's still too large, and the screen size will of course depend on individual monitor settings).

Of course, I'll be the first to admit that this proves nothing since I could have shifted the hue to anything that struck my fancy--purple, blue, or red. *Still, perhaps it provides some further food for thought?

Best regards,
Stefen

Good morning, Achim,

I think that the streaked finish cannot be considered in isolation from Fokker practice over time, which would appear to have undergone evolutionary changes. *This is especially so in view of the truly small sample of surviving fabric available for analysis. *Its uniqueness also suggests caution in extrapolating one’s conclusions and hypotheses to all triplanes. *(Does anyone know of other existing examples of authentic fabric of this type?)

1. E-series: As I have suggested in previous discussions, monoplanes appear to have had a top coat of a pigmented or otherwise colored material over the apparently water-clear shrinking dope. *This upper coating noticeably darkened the appearance of the underlying, nearly white fabric. *The contemporary evidence—visual and written—suggests the hue of this material was quite yellowish or light brown (“beige”). *Photographs suggest that the final result was at least moderately opaque, so I believe it to have been pigmented. *At least some photographs suggest that it was somewhat brittle and subject to sloughing (flaking, peeling), but it otherwise appears to have been “hot fuel proof.” *A few examples of field-applied camouflage to metal cowlings show that this type of finish was not “hot fuel proof.”
2. D-types: *Again as previously noted, the CDL examples of these types show a much lighter and transparent appearance than the E’s. *The finish coat appears to have been water-clear, or nearly so. *Nonetheless, it may have been chemically similar. *We have atleast one example of sloughing (which also shows a slight tonality to the top coat):

http://pilots-n-planes-ww1.com/Central-Pow...k-D1-210-16.jpg

Examples of camouflaged machines suggest that the right “protocol” for the application of colored finishes may have had to be worked out. *The photographic record shows examples of both machines whoes finish appears not to have been “hot fuel proof” and others whose finish is not damaged. *The “paint” over metalwork seems to be particularly prone to being lost, but examples of *degradation on fabric areas are not hard to come by:

http://pilots-n-planes-ww1.com/Central-Pow...-D2-1512-16.jpg

Nonetheless, it is not entirely clear whether some of these examples are of field-applied colors that may not have received the same fuel-proofing as performed under factory protocols.

3. Dr. I: The photographic record suggests that new materials or a different protocol succeeeded in providing overall fuel-proofing (as well as, perhaps, a less brittle finish) on triplanes. *Although the exhaust stream is different on the dreidecker, one might expect to find some areas (such as the lower wing leading edges) to suffer degradation if they were not. *

The question of whether the streaked finish required a clear undercoat is an interesting one. *The way I understand your idea, it seems to me that this suggests the lighter areas of the streaked finish seen in contemporary photographs are, essentially, linen colored. *In my view, neither the photographic record nor the Intel reports support the hypothesis. *Barfoot-Saunt’s description of “various shades of green, blue and grey” suggests that the entire upper and side surfaces are “colored,” not that there are colored swaths and swaths of unpainted fabric. *If that were the case, I would expect him—and others—just to say so, but, of course, I may be wrong to have this expectatation. *

Still, I find the photographs suggest that the lighter areas have a distinctly gray appearance that I take not to be linen, even if unbleached. *Comparison against the white striping in the attached view of 504/17 is, I think, instructive.

I believe the basic scheme was a two-greens one (dark and light) achieved perhaps by application of the unstirred vehicle (which would have been translucent) followed by application of the pigmented “doope” or “paiint.” *Tertiary hues would have resulted naturally from the application method.

One area of experimentation worth looking into, I think, would be the question of what coatings are hot fuel-proof.

Best regards,
Stefen

[AchimEngels]

Good evening, Stefen,

Before I respond to your post please let me know what you think how this piece was treated:



It is one of a series of test frames I did just to see how the color of the Fabric shifts under different treatments.

Now back to your post:

1. I absolutely agree with you that the streaked camouflage scheme as found on the triplanes and the early D.VII´s was a thing that developed over the time.

I have a theory about the evolutionary changes it might have undergone:

A. The first aircraft (Spiders) where clear doped and left so.

B. Following this it was noted that the surface needed something that provided a protection against the elements and a more smooth surface. Eventually the whole aircraft have been covered with a protection coat that resulted in a darker or more "yellow" hue of the aircraft. This might have been a clear oil paint.

C. At a certain point in the war it was decided to give the aircraft a more effective comouflage paint. A cheap and efective idea might have been to first dope the aircraft, paint it with the protection coat and to add simple green strokes on top of it.

D. Later it might have been thought that a combination of three colors would be much more effective. It was not that far away to come to the idea to also apply the underside color on the top side in the same way the green was applied.

(This theory would explain the absence of the relatively light colored strokes as seen in case of the AEG aircraft and on the Triplane. The sudden appearnce of this new way of coloring might also explain why 2nd Lt. Baarfoot Saunt as an intelligence officer pointed out especially "The machine features a new attempt by the enemy at camouflage..various shades of green blue and grey..." 2nd Lt. Baarfoot-Saunt for sure did see other Fokkers in a different paint scheme what makes him feel it neccessary to point out that especially. It is not just a sloppy side note I think.)

1. The E-series. What do you think is the above depicted test frame like. Is the darker hue of the top (the large area) pigmented or not?

I agree with you that the monoplanes look darker than contemporary other aircraft that are CDL covered. But I disagree that these have been treated with a pigmented coat of whatsoever. I just think the darker appearance is due to a coat of clear paint that was applied to whether proof and smoothen the surface. I just can not see a reason to paint something with a pigmented substance that almost was of the same color as the treated linen was.

3. The D-types. I also agree that here are photographs of aircraft that are CDL covered and that appear lighter and more translucent then those E-Types. What if they just missed the top protection coat or if the coat was applied, but the substance was added by another dryier to speed up the drying process of the coat which resulted in not such a darker "yellowish" or "beige" hue?

And for what reason should the earlier E-Types have been painted with a pigmented coat while those are not. I rather more think that they have been made whithout the top protection coat applied to the monoplanes, because of the idea of shortly introducing the "green"/"brown" two color camouflage scheme. If the protection coat that was used with the monoplanes was made basing on lineseed for instance then that two color paint scheme might have not been applicable on top of it for they have used pigmented dope for its application instead of pigmented oil paints. *

3. Triplanes. Perhaps the reason for the change to the "hot fuel proof" paint work as you call it might lay in the fact that Fokker at that time was producing the AEG aircraft. Perhaps he learned from the company of AEG about applying a final coat of clear paint that is "hot fuel proof" as you say. The AEG works had a long time experience in applying painted schemes to fuselages and wings. Prhaps this explains the presence of the clear top coat at the IWM pieces

In my view the lighter areas of the streaks is the underside greyish blue, the darker ones are of linen color and the slid very dark ones are of green.

What 2nd Lt. Baarfoot-Saunt saw mighthave been a triplane on which the underside blueish grey dominated which led to his mention of several shades of green, blue and grey only. "This also might explain the british pilots stated in their combat reports that silvery appearance of Werner Voss´ trilane.

A usualy available clear boat varnish would be "hot fuel proof".

Achim

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Achim:
The "Barfoot-Saunt" you are quoting is a bogus report generated by Rodney Gerrard. I have a copy of this report, and I can assure you it is absolutely phony.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

G'day, again, Achim,

Of course your challenge to specify the finish of your linen frame is utterly unfair and specious: *You are asking me to divine the "color" of a piece of fabric from a single black-and-white photograph, a procedure whose validity I have consistently argued against. *The only person I know who possesses the ability to undertake such a task is, as far as I know, the redoubtable Dan-San Abbott, and perhaps the challenge should have been issued to him!

All my comments here and elsewhere regarding finishes are based on the trends in the aggregate record. *Additionally, without belaboring the point, your photograph leaves something to be desired with respect to illumination and, I presume, does not replicatae period film emulsions. *Nonetheless, in the spirit of fun, which I am sure you intended, I'll take up your gauntlet and say that the front of the frame has a clear or almost clear "varnish" coating. *The overall impression, to my eye at least, does not mimic the appearance of E-types in the historical photographic record, taken in the aggregate of course.

Speaking of latter-day vs. period photographs, I do not find that your b&w conversion of your "418/17" frame replicates the lighter areas seen typically on Dr. Is, which, as I said, are a darker, if still "light," gray. *It does seem to replicate more closely the appearance of the "AEG streaked finish," another example of which can be found at:

http://pilots-n-planes-ww1.com/Central-Pow...G-C4-255-17.jpg

Concerning the use of streaked finishes by AEG and Fokker's implementation of this scheme on license-built machines, do you know when AEG began to employ this finishing method? *The period during which Fokker was building these machines? *Does the evidence therefore suggest that Fokker was not, in fact, the innovator responsible for this type of finish--contra mythology?

Best as ever,
Stefen

PS. Is it not time perhaps to put aside speculation and even perhaps experimentation and visit the Fokker Archives? Assuming the relevant records were not destroyed, wouldn't it be valuable to check the purchase requisitions and invoices for finishing materials during the period 1916-1918? If this has already been done, it would be most illuminating to know the results. The few bits of published material, as concerning the internal work orders/memoranda on the E.V/D.VIII, are tantalizing but inadequate to answering the questions of the moment.

[Laserlloyd]

Dan-San,

PLEASE let me know more about this report. It was sent to me saying that this was in C&C vol. If this if not true, then Mr. Gerrard has done a vary good job of covering up the truth with lies.

How many false reports has he done? Can you let me know about any other repots he has done regarding the DrI's.

Thanks...

Lloyd...

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Lazerlloyd:
I have around 36 of the Rodney Gerrard "reports",
I believe there is 112 that he generated. Of the 36 reports that I have, 13 reports, involve Fokker triplanes.
He had no knowledge of doped fabric, his fabric sample were cut from a piece of cotton cloth, then he doped them, and painted them with model enamel. The contraction of the cotton yarns from the doping would shink the fabric and leave the yarns protruding around the cut piece, like a fringe.( He did not cut off the fringe!
The hand writing is the same on all the reports,
In the case of the "Barfoot-Saunt Report" about Fokker Triplane 103/17(1730), that Achim is using for his data source and is quoting from the third paragraph. I have the same report in two forms, handwritten and typed. The report is addressed "For the attenton of 2cd Lt. Barfoot-Saunt, and is signed "Area Intelligence Officer".
He fooled alot of people who purchased his phony crap. I became immediately suspicious when I saw the Gerrard Collection held by Dr. Glenn Merrill. After discussing this with Greg Van Wyngarden a meeting was joined in San Diego several years ago at the OTF Seminar. at this meeting was myself, Greg, Paul S. Leaman, Peter Grosz, Alan Toelle, Dr.Glenn Merrill and several other interested parties. It was conluded that Alan Toelle would analyse the Gerrard Collections held by dr. Merrill and Paul Leaman and others that could be found and the report would be published.
It was published in Cross & Cockade International.
Apparently some of this crap is still being bought by unsuspecting individuals.
Blue skies,
Dan-San