Fokker E.V wing color preview .....

['14-'18aviationcollector]

Sure looks glossy to me! I have countless photographs of SE5a's, Bristol Fighters, you name it, which demonstrate a similar gloss, or at the very least, semi gloss. The original Fokker D.VIII propellor I have access to is glossy as well. It has been dulled on the front face due to sunlight, but everywhere else it is glossy, or at the very least, semi gloss.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Hi Allan:
The top Fok.D.VIII, McCook Field number ,165,was a puchased by the US Army in 1921 and is painted Olive drab all over. Fok.D.VIII I-ELIA was painted red all over this photo was taken in 1931.
The middle Fok.E.V 132/18 is from Jasta 36 and as I said in an earlier post will reflect white at acute angles, note the leading edge, there is no highlight. If this were gloss or semi-gloss there would be a high light, there is none.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Hi David:
What does the oil varnish finish on a propeller have to do woth a Fok.E.V wing?
Blue skies David,
Dan-San

['14-'18aviationcollector]

Hi Dan-San,

I made the comment because this particular propellor is from a Fokker E.V or D.VIII. Surely the wing would have been finished in the same, or at the very least a very similar varnish wouldn't it? They would have all been oil varnishes, wouldn't they? particularly back then, when there would have been limited or more likely no substitutes such as the ones we have available to us these days.

Cheers,

David.

[riggingitis]

Thank you Womenfly2, and others, for your replies.

That article written by Achim (Mr?) is certainly very interesting. His experiments with monochrome photography certainly seem to add credence to the existance of the four colour wing and it's associated streaking, unintentional or otherwise. I would love to see the results produced by the use old fashioned photographic plates, that really would be conclusive.
As far as the surface finish is concerned, I think it must have been glossy.
Mr Abbott has pointed out various photographs in the Windsock publication were he sees no sign of a shiny surface, yet on nearly every page quoted, there is an example of a glossy undersurface.
Given that the undersurface can only (unless you're lying flat on your back) be viewed from an acute angle, I set up a flat, matte finished board at a similar angle and perceived a dullish sheen, not the high gloss seen in the photographs. This crude experiment is enough to convince me that the wing was probably not matte to begin with, but had quite a high level of sheen, and like you said, weathered quickly to a flat finish, leaving the underside still shiny. I've never known a flat surface become glossy through wear and tear or weathering.
Rather than believe soley in what the documentation says, I'll go with the evidence of my own eyes....a weathered mattish finish above and a gloss one below.

Thanks again.

Regards,

Dennis

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
From the Idflieg directive from the Flugzeugmeisterei, Adlershof of 21 April 1917 reads,
Quote:
AFTER COVERING ALL SURFACES, TO BE DOPED IN THE USUAL WAY AND LASTLY TO BE COVERED WITH A 'MATT' TOP LACQUER OBTAINABLE FROM THE FIRM COHN,BERLIN-NEUKOLLN. U/C, STRUTS, WOOD, METAL COWLINGS ON ENGINES ARE TO BE GIVEN THE SAME COAT OF PAINT COLOURS ON THE FABRIC SO THAT ON THE AIRCRAFT NO OTHER SPECK OF COLOUR IS VISIBLE.[/COLOR]
That is very plain and simple, Idflieg does not want the airplane to reflect light with shinny surfaces, they mean all surfaces.
Idflieg directives were not optional, they were mandantory, they must be complied with or they won't accept the aircraft. That is the purpose of the BLV It tells the manufacturer how:
1. To design the aircraft, the directives their in include every part and component in the aircraft.
2. How to build the aircraft and what is acceptable, what are acceptable bits, and pieces, radiators, wheels. taps, leather, fabric, nail, screws, wire, cable, steel aluminum sheet and tubes, everything.
3. How and where to mark every part, ribs, spars, longerons , fittings, fuel, air oil lines and in what colour.
4. How to finish and paint the aircraft.
5. And what are the inspection requirements of the Bau Office.
They were design and built to rigid requirements, not in some half-ass manner.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[riggingitis]

Hello,

If I finish the undersides of my model's wings with a matte varnish then it will not look like the Fokker E.V/D8s in the Windsock Datafile, which I assuming to be origonal photographs and have not been altered in any way in order to enhance the undulating undersurfaces or show clear reflections of other features of the airframe.
What is important to me, is that my model should resemble one of these machines, ie an operational aircraft, not a representation of what the manufacturer's strict definition of what can or cannot be allowed.

I think Womenfly2 had the right answer, for me, at least....upper surfaces weathered and dull, under surfaces much less so.
Many thanks for helping me to resolve this problem.

Dennis

[jumpinjan]

Dennis,
Those reflection components are on the order of about 1% or maybe 2%. There are not many translucent paints available that will give a near zero percent reflection component. The reason one can see a 2% reflection (or 4% from polished glass) is because there is very, very little background luminance on the under surfaces of the wing, as opposed to the upper surfaces.
By the way, a typical flattening agent is talcum powder or corn starch.
Jan

[womenfly2]

By the way, a typical flattening agent is talcum powder or corn starch.

Silica is used too. A Matt finish still has a sheen to it. I know this from kitchen cabinets I use to make. We would build up the top coats with gloss then one final top coat of flat or matt. When the spot lights in the kitchens were shining on the front of the cabinet doors, they still reflected the light.

In work we do a MIL finish on some power supplies, paint, from FED-STD-595. That is the only flat paint I have ever seen were there is almost no reflectivity. It feels like 100 grit sandpaper too.

So, Jan & Dan are correct, but so are the pictures.

Great discussion everyone!

[allanflowers]

"That is very plain and simple, Idflieg does not want the airplane to reflect light with shinny surfaces, they mean all surfaces."
Dan-San, if you think this seals your case, I am afraid you are mistaken.
I hate to break it to you but this isn't the first - or the last - time a government agency made a "proclamation" that didn't always get perfectly carried out. Sadly (or not), we all know of many cases of government directives not holding true.
Your entire argument is based on this "directive" and absolutely is contradictory to the photographic evidence. Your assertion that there has to be a highlight on the wing edge with a gloss or semi-gloss finish is a naive assumption that is not true. If the photo was taken toward the west with the plane facing east on a bright dawn, there will be a highlight. If the plane is photographed with a darkish sky in the reflection direction, there is NO OBVIOUS HIGHLIGHT. I know this as a professional artist and designer and have seen many many cases where there is no such highlight.
The under wing surfaces in so many of those photos, indeed the majority of them, proves the fact of a semi-gloss finish, if not a gloss finish. For one thing, the wing on page 21, Jasta 36 is NOT photographed at a highly acute angle at all. Also, the reflective fuselage patch/star is well away from the wing surface, giving lie to your assumption because the acute angle theory only works with reflective objects very close to an acute surface. Furthermore, if you look at the corner of the wing, there is your precious highlight!
(and the I-ELIA photo was actually taken in 1927, not 1931 - not that this matters to this argument).