Author Topic: Muzzle smoke on wings.. (Read 475 times)

Waffle · « **on:** June 02, 2004, 04:51:14 PM »

I was just reading an article and it got me to thinking....lol
The article was dealing with the "gunfire residue" left on the wings of airplanes.

Basically it said that the marks weren't left so much on the leading edges and upper surfaces of the wings, but wherever the shells we ejected.

Come to think of it - a majority of the pictures i've seen have the marks behind the shell ejection chute...

Anyway - I'm off to find actual pictures of this, because it seems like a majority of the modellers / skinners ect puth the muzzle smoke residue on the top of the wings....

my pondering for the day....hopefully I don't crack soon..lol

Kweassa · « **Reply #1 on:** June 02, 2004, 05:32:05 PM »

Interesting, Waffle! I've thought about this very same thing recently, while skinning the Ki-61.

Basically, the machine guns mounted, seems to be inside the wings and totally encased, with the end of muzzle part lying deeper than the hole of the wing.

Though a skinning problem, has led me to the decision to depict it with the 'traditional' residue we see in skins, I couldn't help but wonder if a gun mounted inside the wing, would leave a trail like that.

It'd certainly be helpful if we can get more info about it.

Mathman · « **Reply #2 on:** June 02, 2004, 06:47:28 PM »

Here are some pics of F6F's that show some gun powder residue on the top, bottom, and leading edge of the wings.

Pic 1 is from Osprey's "Hellcat Aces of World War 2." Not the best scan, but you can kind of make out the residue. It is circled in green.

Pic 2 is from the title page of the same book. Again, residue from the muzzles is circled in green. If you look close, you can see it above the muzzles. The red circle surrounds where the ejection chutes are.

Pic 3 is from MetroBooks' "Fly Navy." The F6F is on fire, but you can see the muzzle residue on the top of the wing again. This is an F6F-5 with the glossy sea blue finish.

I think a lot of the confusion is that many pictures that you see are of planes before they head out on missions. Prior to going on a sortie, many planes were washed (at least according to several stories from aircrew talking about waxing the wings and such). Makes it tough to see something that is very faint to begin with (unlike the exhaust stains). Is it overdone? That depends on the plane and time frame. Some planes are immaculate. McCampbell's Minsi III is a great example of this. Others are anything but pristine. I have a picture of Jimmy Flatley's F6F on the Yorktown that is absolutely filthy.

I think it ultimately depends on persoanl taste. I think a little gun residue and some exhaust stains are what make the planes look like they are actually used, and not som restoration or museum piece.

Anyways, just thouht I would share some stuff I have found.

Kweassa · « **Reply #3 on:** June 02, 2004, 07:58:23 PM »

Hmm.. seems like the residue from the muzzles itself is short and thin, and the residue of the exhaust chutes are long and wide, and smudgy.

Thanks for the reference Mathman!

Waffle · « **Reply #4 on:** June 02, 2004, 08:23:17 PM »

Need to start thumbing through some books to eyeball how it looks on natural metal planes. It looks like the streaks from the muzzle are thin, as compared to the ejection chutes, where it looks like more "smokey" stains.... if that makes sense.

On thing I just thought off on those pictures - Is it possible that is dirty residue from the tape that they would place over the gun holes before a mission? It would seem that replacing tape after a rearm would, discolor/remove the paint near the gunholes, as well as leave an adhesive residue that would collecect dirt/grime over an extendedd period of service.

mason22 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 02, 2004, 10:56:19 PM »

how much, if any of that residue from the muzzles would be from cleaning?

just another thought, i mean, ya gotta clean the 50's right?

mason22 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 02, 2004, 10:56:57 PM »

FOGOLD · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2004, 01:57:31 AM »

Little geeky thing that makes me unhappy is the smoke stains on the stubbs of the non existent second cannon on the Spit IX.

This aircraft had places for an extra cannon on each wing, but mostly they wern't fitted and were faired over (As in the AH Spit IX). However, AH still shows gunfire staining behind them!

Minor point. At least we don't get muzzle flashes at them like some sims!:rolleyes:

gofaster · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2004, 03:50:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FOGOLD
Little geeky thing that makes me unhappy is the smoke stains on the stubbs of the non existent second cannon on the Spit IX.

This aircraft had places for an extra cannon on each wing, but mostly they wern't fitted and were faired over (As in the AH Spit IX). However, AH still shows gunfire staining behind them!

Minor point. At least we don't get muzzle flashes at them like some sims!:rolleyes:

Isn't that where the .50 cals were mounted?

FOGOLD · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2004, 04:39:36 PM »

Possibly that is it. It doesn't really matter. It came as news to me that .50's were mounted on Spit IX, but I'm constantly finding things out. For example I thought I knew a lot untill I read a book about the Spit V's on Malta (Laddie Lucas). Seemingly they were delivered with 4x 20mm and the pilots had them changed to 2x20mm and 4x .303 to improve performance.