de Havilland DH-4....cloth, wood, or both?

O

OBIO

Retired SOH Admin
Doing some research on the de Havilland DH-4 so I can slap some new paints on to Chris Herring's DH-4 series (bomber, observation and mail plane variants). I have found pics showing the plane with a fully wood covered fuselage (real pics from the era), pics showing part wood and part cloth covering on the fuselage, pics of a DH-4 being restored in which the nose (engine) area were covered in sheet metal and the rest of the fuselage was cloth covered. Which is correct? Or are they all correct? Different construction used throughout the DH-4's period of construction?

OBIO
 
Tim, are you looking at the US version or the British ones?
IIRC the RNAS and RFC aircraft were mostly plywood covered as far back as the observer's pit with fabric over everything else, while the later US built 'Fours' had the crew accomodation close together in the fashion of the DH9a and probably used light sheet metal covering in this area.
:kilroy:
 
wombat

I'm not sure what versions of the DH-4 Chris modeled...the British built or the US built. I know the single seat mail plane is a US modified version with the pilot's cockpit moved back and the original pilot's pit being converted into a water proof compartment for carrying upwards of 400 pounds of mail.

I suppose I will go with this construction on the bomber and observation versions:

Sheet metal on the forward nose area.....engine area

Plywood back to just behind the observer's position

Cloth on the rear part of the fuselage

On the mail plane, I will be doing up a scheme based on a period picture I found. The fuselage is covered in fuselage all the way back to the tail....and not painted. You can clearly see the plywood and it looks great!

Will also do a modern plywood covered restoration with some exotic plywood and copper engine covers!

OBIO
 
Tim,

I can't help with the DH-4 , but the De Havilland DH-89B Dominie has a wooden 'box' fuse with fabric covering over raised ribs.

Pete.
 
yeah depends on the powerplant, if it has a Liberty Engine it's a US built DH-4, if it has the Eagle in the nose it's a British D.H.4, looks to me like wooden spars, metal re-enforcing around the engine and fabric covered elsewhere.... this one is a Liberty Fitted DH-4

dh-4-army-kermit.jpg
 
They were they built by different manufacturers and not all built the same. For example, the original Airco design had the fuel tank located between the cockpits. American versions had the cockpits relocated directly back to back and the fuel tank relocated. They also has a completely different powerplant. Many were rebuilt and modified in the process. The Post Office's mail plane conversions were just one example. Boeing rebuilt many with steel tube fuselages, which made them different enough that the Navy Department re-designated them as the O2B (I don't know if the Army got any of the steel fuselage conversions.)

All you can do is study photos carefully when you research each individual plane.
 
Here's a screen shot of a newly done fictional scheme on the DH-4 single seater mail version. An interwar blue and yellow scheme, bearing the logo of Wright Field. I really like this color scheme....very easy to see from a long way away.

OBIO
 
I'm not sure what version of the DH-4 Chris modeled.....the early/British built DH-4s have a rather large space between the pilot's pit and the gunner/observ's pit...the fuel tanks were between the pits. I know that on the DH-9 the fuel tanks were moved forward and the pilot's pit was moved back....but a lot of the pics I have seen of the US DH-4s show the pilot's pit moved back and the space between the pilot and the gunner/observer narrowed greatly. I don't know if this particular change was done on just US built DH-4s or if it was seen in the later Brit built DH-4s as well.

Regardless, we only have Chris's DH-4 models...so don't be surprised if you see early DH-4 schemes on these models. A little leeway is called for when you only have one model of a plane to work with.

OBIO
 
Thanks for the images Wombat. Will put them to use as much as I can....given the fact that Chris's DH-4 had the cockpit and fuel tank arrangements totally different than what the plans show. I read on a page on the internet somewhere...and can't find it again....that later built models had the fuel tanks moved forward and the pilot's pit moved back.

Oh well...it is what it is and I will still have fun slapping paint onto these birds.

Oh...I watched Flyboys the other night....and that got me in the mood to fly some WW1 era/Bi-planes. That's how I came to fire up the DH-4s and take to the sky in them. Also have spent time in his Dh-2, DH-5, DH-9, and Strutters.

OBIO
 
i enjoy just pootling around in WW1 era aircraft, usually the Fokker DR.I 'Dreidecker' though so 'Beware the hun in the Sun' :icon_lol:
 
The cockpits were moved closer together on all the American rebuilds. (I'm not sure about the original American builds.) I don't think any of the British planes were modified because the Brits did a more comprehensive update that they redesignated as the DH.9.

I have three different versions of Chris's DH.4s: a bomber and an observation plane, both with the American-style cockpit arrangement; they differ in that the bomber has bombs on underwing racks while the observation plane doesn't have the racks, and an American mail plane with the Post Office mods. I don't know if these are Chris's latest versions, but they seem more complete than what you have. I believe these go back to before Chris began to release his planes as payware. The file dates go back to 2007.

 
That is a beautifully-done texture, not so fictional as the AAC did in fact paint theirs like that for a time in the 20s. On the lower surface of the lower wing, I think you'll find in photos the "U. S." of "U.S. ARMY" is on the lower right wing, the "ARMY" is on the lower left. The spacing between the "U" and "S" will be far enough apart so it will occupy the same amount of space the word "ARMY" takes on the lower surface of the lower left wing.

I think the Army kept this marking through June or July of 1942 before phasing it out.
 
SSI01 said:
That is a beautifully-done texture, not so fictional as the AAC did in fact paint theirs like that for a time in the 20s. On the lower surface of the lower wing, I think you'll find in photos the "U. S." of "U.S. ARMY" is on the lower right wing, the "ARMY" is on the lower left. The spacing between the "U" and "S" will be far enough apart so it will occupy the same amount of space the word "ARMY" takes on the lower surface of the lower left wing...
Click to expand...


I must quibble with a couple of your comments.

I've seen literally thousands of photos of Air Corps planes and I have never, ever seen one where the U.S. under the wing was spaced so that it was as wide as the ARMY under the other wing. I'm not saying it never happened - it certainly could have happened, as non-standard markings cropped up from time to time. But if it did happen it was freakishly rare, and it was certainly not in compliance with specifications. I wouldn't mark a model that way unless I had photographic confirmation for that specific plane.

Also, the Army didn't paint their DH-4s that way in the twenties, though it's plausible that they might have painted a few that way in the early thirties. That livery is authentic for the Air Corps, but questionable for the DH-4. The DH-4 was in U.S. Army service until 1932. Until then the Army color scheme for tactical aircraft was olive drab fuselages with yellow flying surfaces. (The yellow parts appeared in stages, but by 1932 the yellow was on both surfaces of both wings and on all tail surfaces except the rudder, which was covered by stripes.) During the DH-4's service with the Army Air Corps, only trainers, transports and other non-combat aircraft had blue fuselages. Blue was specified for the fuselages of tactical aircraft right around 1932 (I'd have to look it up to be certain of exactly when; it was 32, 33 or maybe even 34, right in the middle of the P-26 production run) but even then existing planes were not repainted. Newly built and newly refinished planes had their fuselages painted blue, but planes in service retained their OD until they were up for overhaul and repainting.

By the time it left Army service the DH-4 was so old that it wasn't really a tactical aircraft, but it was still a tactical type. It's possible that some of them were in use as utility planes (I don't think they were used as trainers, though I'm not sure) and might have been painted with blue fuselages, but I wouldn't feel too confident of that. More likely they kept their OD until they were withdrawn.

Does that mean Tim shouldn't paint the DH that way? Of course not! It's a great paint job, it looks great on the model, I love it and I would be happy to fly it. I will fly it if I ever get around to getting FS installed on my present computer. I'm just saying that it's a speculative livery and should probably be considered fictional.

But the U.S. under the wing should Not be spaced out to the width of ARMY.

OK, enough of being pedantic. I'm sorry - sometimes I just can't help myself!
 
You know, you're right - it couldn't be spaced out as wide as "Army" - I misspoke my intent. Not the first time. Maybe a better way to put it would be to say the "U S" shouldn't be run together right next to each other as there was always a space between them. Here's one for the trivia afficiandos in the audience - I've seen paint jobs with periods after the "U" and "S," and also with no periods. Wonder which one is correct?

The Navy had a slate grey scheme for its aircraft for a time in the late 30s and into 1940, but by that time these DH-4s were gone. I have seen photos of light grey USN DH-4s with yellow upper wings in the 1920s, though.
 
Mick said:
The cockpits were moved closer together on all the American rebuilds. (I'm not sure about the original American builds.) I don't think any of the British planes were modified because the Brits did a more comprehensive update that they redesignated as the DH.9.

I have three different versions of Chris's DH.4s: a bomber and an observation plane, both with the American-style cockpit arrangement; they differ in that the bomber has bombs on underwing racks while the observation plane doesn't have the racks, and an American mail plane with the Post Office mods. I don't know if these are Chris's latest versions, but they seem more complete than what you have. I believe these go back to before Chris began to release his planes as payware. The file dates go back to 2007.
Click to expand...

IIRC the RNAS were very fond of their RR Eagle powered 'Flaming Coffins' Mick.
They certainly refused the evil Armstrong Siddeley Puma powered DH9, horrible aeroplane, which was only considered fit for service after the Liberty replaced the Puma in the DH9A.
The 'Nine Acks' served with the RAF well in the Thirties, not a bad record for an aircraft that was descended from a dud.
:kilroy:
 
SSI01 said:
You know, you're right - it couldn't be spaced out as wide as "Army" - I misspoke my intent. Not the first time. Maybe a better way to put it would be to say the "U S" shouldn't be run together right next to each other as there was always a space between them. Here's one for the trivia afficiandos in the audience - I've seen paint jobs with periods after the "U" and "S," and also with no periods. Wonder which one is correct?

The Navy had a slate grey scheme for its aircraft for a time in the late 30s and into 1940, but by that time these DH-4s were gone. I have seen photos of light grey USN DH-4s with yellow upper wings in the 1920s, though.
Click to expand...

The periods are correct: U.S., not US, though like anything else, there were violations of the rule.

The gray in the Navy's liveries went through many changes, both in its color and in it's application. Originally the Navy painted its planes overall gray, like everything else the Navy owned, and the color was apparently good old battleship gray. After much experimentation with camouflage they decided that nothing is really harder to see against a wide variety of sky backgrounds than silver, so they started painting their planes silver. Aluminized silver dope worked well on fabric surfaces and it was used on fabric until the advent of camouflage on the eve of WW2, but aluminized silver lacquer didn't stick to metal surfaces very well, a major problem for planes operated in salty sea air, so the silver was soon replaced by gray on metal parts. When this practice started in the twenties it was first done at the unit level, and apparently stocks of regular battleship gray were used, as photos show a rather dark gray. By the time the specifications caught up with fleet practice the Navy wanted a gray that would look as much like silver as possible, and they came up with the shade that's come down to us as Light Gull Gray (though it didn't acquire that name for some time - after WW2 I believe.) Navy planes had silver fabric areas and gray metal parts until the mid-late thirties (1937 if I recall correctly, but don't hold me to the year!), when paints had improved to the point where they could count on aluminized silver lacquer to stick to the metal parts. From then until the advent of camo, they painted their planes overall silver. (Except, or course, for the upper surface of the upper wing, and parts of the tails that were covered by rudder stripes or identification colors.) When the Navy went to camouflage shortly before SWW2, the color they selected was once again what we would later know as Light Gull Gray.

Several years ago, when I was painting models of a lot of interwar Navy planes, I put together a sheet that summarized the changes to interwar Navy color and marking standards. I used to include it with each repaint, or with each release of a pre-WW2 Navy plane that David and I made. If you're interested in this stuff enough to plod through it, I've attached a copy here.
 
wombat666 said:
IIRC the RNAS were very fond of their RR Eagle powered 'Flaming Coffins' Mick.
They certainly refused the evil Armstrong Siddeley Puma powered DH9, horrible aeroplane, which was only considered fit for service after the Liberty replaced the Puma in the DH9A.
The 'Nine Acks' served with the RAF well in the Thirties, not a bad record for an aircraft that was descended from a dud.
:kilroy:
Click to expand...

Isn't the "Nine Ack" the bird used by the RAF in its "air policing" of Iraq and other areas of the Middle East? I've seen that policy described as fairly successful. Was it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top