Aircraft Markings

[bspatz]

A real anorak question for Xmas but one that has perplexed me for a while; can anyone explain why, unlike all the other RAF AT types, RAF Hercules do not have underwing markings(roundels)?

[Tea White Zero]

Can't see them when you are in the weeds:ok:

[ShotOne]

That's not convincing; other types with "all over" camouflage had markings underneath

[Dougie M]

In earlier days the Reg Nos on Hercs were much larger but there were no underside roundels when this paint scheme came in. In Rhodesia and Ethiopia the white crosses made good aiming points though




http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag76/dougiemarsh/50f25b78-57f3-41fd-909b-2667d462b25e_zpsa9gigq79.png

[Tea White Zero]

I'm pretty sure as the Herc is a high-wing mono-plane, the painter's ladders won't reach!
Either that or modern twin-pack paint won't stick to the underside; bring back cellulose!

[bspatz]

Tea White Zero I think you will find that the underside of the wings on A400m and C17 are both higher than the Herc so presumably someone has a ladder that will reach! However given that it has been going on for some time it might just be a tradition that has been perpetuated and now makes some sense given its now exclusively tactical role.

[Tea White Zero]

Bspatz, thanks for your ladder measuring calculations, very useful. I think the issue must be that Airbus and Boeing ladders must be longer than Lockheed's. I reckon its all down to cutbacks!

Does your analysis mean that when the 400 and 17 take on the TacAT role, the long ladders will have to come back out to remove markings? :-)

[bspatz]

Tea White Zero I think this comes back to the point of my original question, if the roundels are removed from the 400 and C17 when they take on a TacAT role we will know what the logic is; otherwise is must be a problem with the length of the ladders at Lockheed and presumably Marshalls!

[ShyTorque]

The roundels just give the enemy something better to aim at.