RAf Bomber wavy demarcation lines, why?

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 2,535

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.
Original post

Member for

10 years 10 months

Posts: 952

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...

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 700

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.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 8,826

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.

Member for

5 years 2 months

Posts: 584

They didn't have any masking tape?

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 894

It was never ordered, and never authorised:- http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u79/EdgarBrooks/wavy%20line%20demarcation%20.bomber%20May%201941_zpsfkonqqpf.jpg Didn't last long, either.

Member for

5 years 2 months

Posts: 584

Thankyou Edgar. That is very informative.

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 2,535

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.

Member for

5 years 2 months

Posts: 584

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.

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 2,535

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.

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 628

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.

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 2,895

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.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 894

Doubt it's Gibson; in May 1941 he was flying Beaufighter nightfighters

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 2,895

Thanks Edgar/Eddie - satisfied my curiosity for me. Roger Smith.