[WWI] RFC/RNAS Queries

[Ray B]

Mark,
The formulations were developed by the RAF, not so much owned.

In a letter from a Naval stores officer in Sheerness in January 1917.
He stated that PC10 should only be used as a top coat since it was in
short supply. PC10 and PC12 had only come into general use the year
before.

As with anything they probably used in the field what they could get.
The factories manufacturing aircraft would have used up stocks as
well. But PC10 and PC12 would have been being used on new aircraft by
1917 at the latest.

One other point might make a difference. The navy didnt like using
varnish over pc10 pc12. Supposedly it didnt respond well to salt
water. The RFC did use this as a top coat as part of the doping
system.
Not sure what that would do in tones...

Ray

--- Mark Shannon <shingend at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >From that Huntley article, the original plan was to provide the
> best
> anti-UV protection to the aircraft by doping with PC-12, then
> aluminium
> dope.  Camouflage considerations came into play and aluminum dope
> was
> dropped, then the decision made to use the slightly less effective
> UV-wise,
> but better ground camouflaging PC-10 formulation.  Again, I thought
> the
> thing with RNAS use was that the PC-10 and -12 formulations were
> owned by
> the RAF. The RNAS suppliers and Sopwith's were not allowed access
> for
> manufacturing it for themselves, and could not order from the RAF's
> suppliers, but were ordered to use the stuff.  RNAS suppliers came
> up with
> their own 'proprietary' versions until there was a relenting as the
> war
> went on and RFC and RNAS were getting the same aircraft from the
> same
> manufacturers. 
> 
> Mark Shannon
> shingend at ix.netcom.com
> 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: dave fleming <dave.fleming at dial.pipex.com>
> > To: World War I Modeling Mailing List <wwi at wwi-models.org>
> > Date: 2/12/2007 6:48:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: [WWI] RFC/RNAS Queries
> >
> > Quoting Crawford Neil <Neil.Crawford at volvo.com>:
> >
> > >  
> > > Christopher:
> > > >7) A recent build by Neil Pinchbeck of Revell's S.E.5a
> > > >kit in SAMI v. 12 iss. 12 suggests that cockpit
> > > >interior sides were finished in red oxide primer.  All
> > > >my references for S.E.s and Sopwiths point to
> > > >varnished and often stained wood finishes instead. 
> > > >Any ideas on red lead primer?
> > > 
> > >
> > Red Oxide primer came from PC12/AMAPDT and was used as a primer
> on fabric 
> > before the top silver dope/other colour on fabric aeroplanes from
> the
> early 20s 
> > onwards (At one time I could have told you when, but I forget!)
> as a
> protective 
> > coating - it bled/was visible through to the insides, leaving a
> pinkish
> colour.
> >
> > AID Instructions in September 1918 (AID 550 8-18) specified
> internal
> colours as:
> >
> > (i) All wooden components to have a waterproofed (Shellac)
> varnished
> finish. 
> > Howvere, where mixed colouring may result (e.g. mahogany ply
> skins
> against 
> > spruce or ash longerons etc) all components may be stained to
> present a
> near 
> > uniform colour prior to varnishing
> >
> > (ii) Instrument Boards...may be in a dark stained finish and
> shellac
> varnished, 
> > or may be covered in a textured brown leather or leather cloth
> material
> >
> > (iii) Surround to cockpit - Kapok filled brown leather
> >
> > (iv) Instruments - casings and faces to have black finish
> >
> >
> > (v) Seats - all seats & associated equipment to match brown
> finish where 
> > possible. Metal components to be in black or light grey.
> >
> > I've never heard of red-oxide as a primer/internal colour on WW!
> aircraft
> (Even 
> > in the 20/30s it was used on wood, but with a top covering of
> white or 
> > aluminium)
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 


Models blog
http://sagitariousrising.blogspot.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com