# How Clean Were WW II Aircraft? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 24, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854 "2004-10-24T03:07:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/21 "2004-10-25T21:18:18Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > The PBY Catalina you posted a picture of is virtually all metal. The movable part of control surfaces were covered in doped fabric as was common practice then but that is completely waterproof. I don’t think the US military was operating any planes by WWII that had major wood structural members. > > A bullet hole that doesn’t cause a serious structural compromise like a crack that may propegate is no big deal. Corrosion setting into structural joints can cause large bits of the airframe to fall off. This can be a significant incinvenience to the aviator if it happens during flight. > > Lack of fresh water is a problem but there are other ways to clean aircraft. I’m not sure what they used in WWII but I had to supervise many a crew of turd shirts cleaning an entire F-14 with aerosol cans and rags. We’d clean off all the exposed surfaces to remove salt residue and apply anti corrosion compound to every bit that wasn’t covered by paint. This would include every fasterner over removable panels, joints, tie down points, launch bar, tail hook point, etc. Thanks, it’s been a while since I’ve read much on US aircraft from WW II (once I discovered the experimental aircraft the Germans were building, I got hooked on that). ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/22 "2004-10-25T23:08:44Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > The PBY Catalina you posted a picture of is virtually all metal. The movable part of control surfaces were covered in doped fabric as was common practice then but that is completely waterproof. I don’t think the US military was operating any planes by WWII that had major wood structural members. I think that is true of combat aircraft, at least after the very beginning. I believe that the Curtis P-26, which was still in use at the beginning of the war, had fabric-covered, wood-structure wings. Several training planes had a lot of wooden structural members. For example many of the Army BT-13 (Vultee Vibrator) trainers had plywood outer wing panels and the fuselage aft of the rear cockpit plus all of the tail assembly was plywood. In addition I’m pretty sure the AT-17 (Cessna Bobcat) and the Stearman PT-17 had wood wings covered with fabric. Of the combat planes, the B-25 metal frame control surfaces covered with fabric. There might have been some others also. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/23 "2004-10-26T00:04:38Z")
> [@Ten 21/14](#): > > The P-40? > > [http://www.visitusa.com/planes/p40.jpg](http://www.visitusa.com/planes/p40.jpg) Yep, that looks like it. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/24 "2004-10-26T03:38:41Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > …Curtis P-26, which was still in use at the beginning of the war, had fabric-covered, wood-structure wings. > > Army BT-13 (Vultee Vibrator) trainers… > > … AT-17 (Cessna Bobcat) and the Stearman PT-17 .,… > > …B-25 metal frame control surfaces covered with fabric. I’m not aware of a Curtiss P-26 but the Boeng P-26 was one of the first all-metal, moncoque planes used by the US military. AFAIK I was not still in service in the US and the only that saw action were in the Philippines. As for control surfaces on the B-26 and many other WWII planes, which I already mentioned, please note that wood is not fabric. I’ll concede the other planes but all the examples given are trainers which did not see front line service. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/25 "2004-10-26T12:48:54Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > I’m not aware of a Curtiss P-26 but the Boeng P-26 was one of the first all-metal, moncoque planes used by the US military. AFAIK I was not still in service in the US and the only that saw action were in the Philippines. > > As for control surfaces on the B-26 and many other WWII planes, which I already mentioned, please note that wood is not fabric. > > I’ll concede the other planes but all the examples given are trainers which did not see front line service. It was Boeing and not Curtis, and it was the first all metal US AAF plane. It also had externally braced wings, not cantilevered, and was the last US AAF plane with that feature. I remembered the wing braces and I just assumed wood wing spars. The B-26 had metal skin control surfaces. It was the B-25, as my post said, that had “metal frame control surfaces covered with fabric.” And the first sentence in my post said that no wooden structural elements was “true of combat aircraft” and I specifically identified all of the others as trainers. You don’t have to “concede” anything. I wasn’t correcting anything. ---
**Author:** ![jinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jinty)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/26 "2004-10-26T13:17:00Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > I don’t think the US military was operating any planes by WWII that had major wood structural members. Except the [De Havilland Mosquito](http://www.afapo.hq.af.mil/presentation/Common/artcollection.cfm?IMAGE_ID=4748), aka the wooden wonder, which was used for reconnaissance, night-fighting and bombing. IIRC something called “reverse lend-lease” gave the USAAF some Mosquitoes. “The “Wooden Wonder” was constructed from Alaskan spruce, English ash, Canadian birch and fir, and Ecuadorian balsa glued and screwed together in new, innovative ways, and motivated by the world’s finest reciprocating, liquid-cooled power plants, a pair of Rolls Royce Merlins. There has never been a more successful, combat-proven warplane made of wood.” From [here](http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/dehavilland_mosquito.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/27 "2004-10-26T21:19:47Z")
Say **David** , while I’ve got your attention, can you explain to me why I’ve seen two different designation numbers (I think that’s what it’s called) for the bomber named in honor of Billy Mitchell? I’ve seen it called the B-24 and the B-25. Which one is correct or are both right? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/28 "2004-10-26T21:46:47Z")
B-24 “Liberator” High-wing, 4-engine heavy bomber B-25 “Mitchell” Mid-wing, 2-engine medium bomber ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/29 "2004-10-26T23:06:46Z")
> [@jinty](#): > > Except the [De Havilland Mosquito](http://www.afapo.hq.af.mil/presentation/Common/artcollection.cfm?IMAGE_ID=4748), aka the wooden wonder, which was used for reconnaissance, night-fighting and bombing. IIRC something called “reverse lend-lease” gave the USAAF some Mosquitoes. Well I’ll be jiggerd. I did not know that we operated Skeeters in WWII. A fine aircraft with mucho cool factor. At any rate this whole wooden airplane thing has gone astray from the OP somewhat but I’ll take my parting shot by saying that wooden airplanes need more preventive maintenance than metal ones 😉 For sake of argument I always considered an otherwise metal plane with fabric covered control surfaces for practical purposes to be all-metal. Even the F-14 has fabric surfaces, though on the fuselage. There are a pair of inflated fabric and rubber bladders on the top of the fuselage where the aux flap (the flap surface closest to the fuselage) overlaps as the wing sweeps back. It provides an aerodunamic surface that flexes enough to conform as the flap and wing slide over it. ---
**Author:** ![UncaStuart](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uncastuart/32/404_2.png) [@UncaStuart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncaStuart)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/30 "2004-10-27T02:01:18Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > Well I’ll be jiggerd. I did not know that we operated Skeeters in WWII. A fine aircraft with mucho cool factor. Agreed. Here’s a [Mosquito](http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18.htm) at the Air Force Museum, in USAAF livery. ---
**Author:** ![Balle\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@Balle\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balle_M)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/31 "2004-10-27T02:18:28Z")
I think that a lot would depend on where the aircraft were stationed. I would imagine that airfields in England had the facilities to keep their aircraft much cleaner than planes operating out of Guadalcanal or New Guinea. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854/32 "2004-10-27T06:33:59Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Say **David** , while I’ve got your attention, can you explain to me why I’ve seen two different designation numbers (I think that’s what it’s called) for the bomber named in honor of Billy Mitchell? I’ve seen it called the B-24 and the B-25. Which one is correct or are both right? I’m not ignoring the question. **silenus** already answered it. Whoever said that the B-24 was name the Mitchell was seriously mistaken. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-clean-were-ww-ii-aircraft/270854.md?page=1)