![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 09:29:58 UTC+2, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
I searched this thread and did not see an actual study referenced, only urban legend, that bright colors not found in nature somehow act to "work as camouflage because they erode the edge of the plane's outline/silhouette". The fact that this topic re-appears every couple of years and generates a lot of debate suggests that not enough scientific research has been done to validate or invalidate the argument for or against anti-collision markings. In certain situations such as a glider against a snow covered mountain, high visibility orange DayGlo certainly does help but it may also camouflage the glider in other conditions. The RAF held glider conspicuity trials at Bicester in June and October 2002.. It evaluated 3M Mirror Film and DayGlo markings. The summary was "We conclude that the DayGlo patches did not improve conspicuity." while the mirror film greatly increased sighting range if sunlight was present. Source: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/gl...uity-study.pdf A German flavoured study: https://www.streckenflug.at/index.php?p=technikwarn Summary: "The use of colour markings as an anti-collision aid is questionable. In particular when two aircraft are on a constant-bearing (collision) course, it is the size and shape of the other aircraft which is seen first, not any colour pattern. The use of colour seems obvious at short range and on the ground but this is often not the critical case in the air in a collision situation." Position reporting, pilot scan technique and strobe lights were deemed to be far more effective than colour markings. As a glider owner who is planning to repaint his glider this year in a country that doesn't mandate anti-collision markings and doesn't experience snow fall (where I fly), I am very interested in what the best solution is. My personal conclusion is that FLARM, mirror film and strobe lights facing all directions would be a much better solution than just DayGlo markings. Unfortunately the power requirements and drag created by multiple strobe light housings retro-fitted to a glider prevents me going this route so mirror film and FLARM is probably the best bet? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aircraft Markings | Stretch | Aviation Photos | 4 | January 13th 08 12:39 PM |
HC-1 SH-3 1972 markings ? | Mike Weeks | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 17th 07 04:12 AM |
B-29 tail markings | Peter Twydell | Military Aviation | 11 | September 10th 04 10:28 AM |
High Visibility markings research? | Craig Reynolds | Soaring | 2 | June 3rd 04 11:25 PM |
P51 maintenance markings | Serge Seguret | Restoration | 1 | May 26th 04 02:50 PM |