It's interesting the modern day aviators who get their knickers in a twist over the use of the word "plane" when referring to aircraft. It's a debate that raises its head with monotonous regularity and we have the righteous who claim the proper use of the word refers to a tool used in woodwork (among other meanings). Now if an august journal such as "Flight" uses the word repetitively in 1920, if not earlier (I couldn't be bothered searching back earlier), it's good enough for me have the populous et al refer to aeroplanes or aircraft as "planes".
When applied to air machines of war it increases their effectiveness and efficiency, prevents the loss of planes in combat and protects the lives of pilots.
The factors entering into the correct solution of the camouflage problem are the functions of the plane, its visibility and the psychological effect of this deception or camouflage on the human mind.
It is, therefore, necessary, that all under-surfaces of such planes be coated with some material that would be as bright as possible and would reflect back to the earth not only a large quantity of light, but also the colour of the sky.
This is an enormous advantage for aircraft operating under war conditions, as it places the pilot of the plane in a position to observe without being observed with the additional advantage that a plane can operate with a greater load if the ceiling at which it must travel can be lowered.
plane | aeronautical camouflage | camouflage | 1920 | 0979 | Flight Archive
Does "Flight" circa 1920 qualify as moronic global media Fragnasty? Or maybe a lesson in history?
