An exotic and different camouflage

[pampa14]

I share with you some pictures of aircraft applied with camouflage called Barclay. A question, does this camouflage was used operationally or only a test? To see the photos, please visit the link below.


Aviação em Floripa: Camuflagens Barclay


Best Regards.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Looks cool, probably not effective though. As far as I know, the camo pattern is irrelevant, all airplanes become black dots at distance

 

[BiffF15]

Actually, if you look at the current colors and schemes used by the US you will notice a trend of grey, blue grey, and grey. The black dot at a distance is delayed / blurred by lighter colors (in my opine) and in closer due to blending with the background make judging distance away more difficult.

The USN RCAF also paint false canopies on the bottom of their A/C, which is something I personally like. It can cause an adversary to delay or not do something which in turn might allow an advantage for the friendly.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[GrauGeist]

The A-10 also has a "false canopy" on their undersides and an interesting note about that, the Ju88 gunships with the solid nose used to have a "false greenhouse" painted on their nose to fool interceptors into thinking it was a standard bomber, thus enticing a frontal attack (a fatal mistake for the interceptors)

 

[Milosh]

Barclay the artist was killed in action, lost at sea aboard LST-342, sunk at Rendova, New Georgia in the Solomon Islands, 1943.

Model of a F2A,
Brewster F2A-1 Barclay Buffalo by John Valo (Classic Airframes 1/48)

 

[fubar57]

The A-10 also has a "false canopy" on their undersides and an interesting note about that, the Ju88 gunships with the solid nose used to have a "false greenhouse" painted on their nose to fool interceptors into thinking it was a standard bomber, thus enticing a frontal attack (a fatal mistake for the interceptors)

Some P-38s also had a false front to make this look like unarmed droop snoots. As far as I remember, the Barclay aircraft never went into combat.

Geo

 

[nuuumannn]

This was the key to dazzle camouflage; sharply contrasting angles and lines made it difficult for enemy vessels to gauge a bearing on the dazzle painted ship or determine its actual size, particularly against dim backgrounds. One of the best examples:

http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...0abce4b0800b167ae6c9/1410796220531/index.jpeg

 

[bobbysocks]

The USN RCAF also paint false canopies on the bottom of their A/C, which is something I personally like. It can cause an adversary to delay or not do something which in turn might allow an advantage for the friendly.

Cheers,
Biff

that is pretty interesting. I think in an engagement where the pilot was close enough to see and recognize the canopy ( fake one ) it may lull him into choosing the wrong maneuver in order to engage...

 

[bobbysocks]

The USN RCAF also paint false canopies on the bottom of their A/C, which is something I personally like. It can cause an adversary to delay or not do something which in turn might allow an advantage for the friendly.

Cheers,
Biff

that is pretty interesting. I think in an engagement where the pilot was close enough to see and recognize the canopy ( fake one ) it may lull him into choosing the wrong maneuver in order to engage...

 

[BiffF15]

It generally gets you beyond a few thousand feet. It often makes you delay an aggressive pull for fear of collision. I'm not sure why the USAF doesn't use it.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Milosh]

It generally gets you beyond a few thousand feet. It often makes you delay an aggressive pull for fear of collision. I'm not sure why the USAF doesn't use it.

Cheers,
Biff

Maybe NIH??

 

[GregP]

Hi, Biff. They looked into it and decided not to pay royalty fees to the aviation artist who developed the concept. Canada pays the royalties. At some point, the patent will run out, but they can run 50 years.

 

[fubar57]

If I recall, the RCAF reasoning for the false canopy was more to do with ground attack more than dog fighting .


Geo

 

[GrauGeist]

If I recall, the RCAF reasoning for the false canopy was more to do with ground attack more than dog fighting .


Geo

It's to create confusion in a dogfight, where a split-second moment of confusion under high Gs can offer a chance to evade an attacker. A good number of airforces use it today.

On a related note, Kieth Ferris holds several patents on modern camouflage, including the false canopy. While he's a very accomplished aviation artist, I don't agree with several publications (and websites) that claim he's a "pioneer" in aircraft camo and that he's the "inventor" of the false canopy.

 

[GregP]

Hi Graugeist,

I don't know for sure either way, so I'll say this. Canada pays him royalties and we refused and don;t use the technique. That says something to me, but maybe it's only legal. I haven't an opinion on whether or not he originated the idea, but he DOES have a legal claim. All they'd have to do to find out is to start using the technique without paying. When the lawsuit settled out, we STILL might not know, but SOMEONE would win some money.

 

[GrauGeist]

Hi Graugeist,

I don't know for sure either way, so I'll say this. Canada pays him royalties and we refused and don;t use the technique. That says something to me, but maybe it's only legal. I haven't an opinion on whether or not he originated the idea, but he DOES have a legal claim. All they'd have to do to find out is to start using the technique without paying. When the lawsuit settled out, we STILL might not know, but SOMEONE would win some money.

Greg, to be honest, they were painting fake cockpits or greenhouses on aircraft before his time. I know I've read somewhere that he's a fan of historical camouflage, so this initself indicates where his concepts have come from.

In WWI, they used razzle-dazzle camo on ships, tanks and aircraft, the Germans used (to good effect) the Lozenge camo, which had it's roots in the Impressionism art of the day. There's been many different "optical deception" schemes used, following examples set by nature.

Anyway, here's a mock greenhouse used on a Ju88 gunship (as I mentioned earlier) that lured interceptors into fatally thinking it was a bomber:

Here, we can see the "mock greenhouse" taken to an extreme level on a B-24:

So Kieth's concepts are nothing new and in my opinion, don't warrant a patent nor accolades.

 

[GregP]

None of those is the same idea, but perhaps close. The B-24 is more like Dazzle and the fake wake about 1/3 back from the ship's bow. I'd say nobody in WWII bothered to patent the idea and the legal climate since then is somewhat ridiculous. But I digress ...

The new concept looks like a decent idea for close-in fighting and our methods are designed to mitigate that, so maybe they just don't think it is necessary. I can't say.

 

[GrauGeist]

None of those is the same idea, but perhaps close...

well, the idea of painting a dark spot on the fuselage to look like a canopy sure seems like the same idea as the Germans had, painting a spot on the nose to resemble a bomber's greenhouse...just 40 year's difference!

 

[GregP]

You think like I do, but I am NOT a laywer.

The two ideas are different concepts ... one is a piston fighter and the other is aan F-18 jet about 50 years later. Since I'm not a lawyer, one could easily lead me to the other, and I wouldn't think to patent it either.

Rod did.