Quote:
|
Well, British findings following investigation that started when first such US aircraft appeared stated that there were no performance gains, and although finish was much easier to maintain, there were several drawbacks.
|
I don't know much about the British paints. It sounds very interesting. From what Graham relates and the findings of the RAF I would say they did not have the problems the USAAF experienced. They sound very similar to the RLM finishes and probably did not have the need to change their finishes.
Quote:
|
Other steps taken at the same time, such as not painting the interiors with anti-corrosion paint, were certainly made in the direction of cutting production time and costs.
|
To me those kind of cutbacks make perfect sense. Most of these airframes were not lasting long enough to risk corrosion. However as someone stated earlier, when at their best the Luftwaffe designs were equal to the allied fighters in performance. A force made up largely of inexperienced poorly trained pilots was also flying them. The only hope the Jadgwaffe had was to have these new pilots gain enough experience to be effective. To do that they needed every once of performance they could muster. As the RAF found out in 1940 the airframe is replaceable, the pilot is not.
Not saying every airframe was a pampered formula one racer, I just think they did the most practical things they could to improve performance AND improve the logistics.
All the best,
Crumpp