Read the forum code of contact
By: 12th June 2015 at 19:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I don't think I've seen an explanation, but I suggest it may be because wavy demarcations are better than long straight lines, which do tend to draw the eye to them. Perhaps eventually they abandoned even the faint idea of day operations were it might have been useful...
By: 12th June 2015 at 21:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Possibly mis-interpretation of the instructions that where colours met they should not have a 'sharp demarcation' as it should be broken by a wavy line rather than a soft sprayed edge, which is what was actually intended.
By: 12th June 2015 at 21:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Because it breaks up a shape better than straight lines. Also to produce a straight line you need to mask off the line, where as a wavy line can be done free hand.
By: 12th June 2015 at 22:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-They didn't have any masking tape?
By: 13th June 2015 at 00:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It was never ordered, and never authorised:-
Didn't last long, either.
By: 13th June 2015 at 06:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Thankyou Edgar. That is very informative.
By: 13th June 2015 at 08:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Because it breaks up a shape better than straight lines. Also to produce a straight line you need to mask off the line, where as a wavy line can be done free hand.
This is true for American aircraft that have an irregular demarcation. However RAF aircraft had a very precise wavy demarcation which must have been masked to produce.
By: 13th June 2015 at 08:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Well from personal observation I can say it's true in the '70's & '80's. All the a/c I saw being painted were masked for the camo schemes.
By: 13th June 2015 at 08:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It was never ordered, and never authorised:-
Didn't last long, either.
Interesting that a wavy line was less effective than a striaght line.
What happened to the merging mentioned in the document. A straight line cannot be concidered `merging`.
I guess they decided any airframe loss due to the demarcation was outweighed by normal combat losses and became irrelevant,
and as a straight line was easier to paint they stuck with that. Much like the Americans abandoning camo all together.
By: 13th June 2015 at 08:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ground-based camo is only going to work at lowish altitude, so as perfomance increased it became increasingly irrelevant. Black (or sky etc) paint on the underside is a different matter.
By: 13th June 2015 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Edgar, have you deciphered the signature on that document?
I am not familiar with Guy Gibson's signature but that looks like a capital G, then something, capital G, l (or i?), b, o, n.
Apologies for the topic diversion.
Roger Smith.
By: 13th June 2015 at 17:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Doubt it's Gibson; in May 1941 he was flying Beaufighter nightfighters
By: 13th June 2015 at 18:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Here is Gibson's autograph - http://www.autographcollection.co.uk/guy-gibson-autograph-signed-display-9105-p.asp
Clearly a different signature.
By: 14th June 2015 at 07:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Thanks Edgar/Eddie - satisfied my curiosity for me.
Roger Smith.
Posts: 2,536
By: hampden98 - 12th June 2015 at 18:14
I've often wondered why manufacturers went to the trouble of painting wavy demarcation lines on bomber aircraft.
It must have taken longer as eventually the line became straight, which must make painting a lot easier.
But I'm curious, why wavy? It's not like it was a labour saving device or laziness as on RAF bombers the wavy line
is very precise.