A short video: B-17's Painted vs Unpainted

[Volron]

Just stumbled onto this one and thought it neat. 

[Eagler]

Would an unpainted bomber be easier to see sooner as the sun would glint more easily off it?

Eagler

[-gg-]

Interesting that the painted bombers had so much better range and performance. It's not insignificant. For the same distance, the unpainted ones would have needed 80 gallons more fuel. 3-5 mph faster too.

It makes sense. The paint smooths over the rivets and filles in some of the panel lines.

I thought the paint would have weighed more though. I think they said it was only 75 pounds.

[Volron]

Would an unpainted bomber be easier to see sooner as the sun would glint more easily off it?

Eagler

I recall him mentioned that the crews thought just that, easier to be spotted.  Whether there is any merit behind that, I'm not sure.  I'd suspect they were for the very reason you mentioned.

Interesting that the painted bombers had so much better range and performance. It's not insignificant. For the same distance, the unpainted ones would have needed 80 gallons more fuel. 3-5 mph faster too.

It makes sense. The paint smooths over the rivets and filles in some of the panel lines.

I thought the paint would have weighed more though. I think they said it was only 75 pounds.

Based off what I gathered in the video: They were saving time getting them out there by not painting them, but it was costing them in combat efficiency: fuel and maintenance (mentioned in the video that they had to run the engines a little harder to keep in formation with painted B-17's).  I also thought it would weigh more than 75lbs to have em fully painted.  I'm now curious how hitech has modeled the B-17.  Did you go based off the unpainted or painted numbers?