Last words

In article ,
RR Urban wrote:

I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible color to
be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the emergency
vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.

Hey brother John. We're all concerned for Unka Boob's Safety.
However we seem to have different opinions about which color is
safest.

I suggest we each purchase a spray can of Krylon in the color we think
is safest and at the Pinckneyville Fly-In next May we can each paint a
portion of the RV-3.

- John (I got dibs on the canopy) Ousterhout -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No 'checkerboard' paint allowed.
Axe Snowbird for details.

How about striped? Or polka-dot?

I got it! *PAISLEY*!!!

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
rvers.com...


The "best" solution is to use *multiple* colors.

My airplane (non-experimental, but don't hold that against me) is painted
white
on the top surfaces, and dark red/maroon on the underside of the fuselage.
I
figure it helps visibility, in that the light outline should be visible
against most
earth-tone surfaces (snow excepted), and the dark red should stand out
against
most sky colors.

Sort of the reverse of some early camoflage schemes that used light below,
and
dark above. I'm thinking of some WWII era Navy schemes here...

Just a thought.
Henry Bibb

(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

Lotsa' good stuff snipped for brevity

For 'esthetic' appeal, I might add relatively -thin- outlines of chess pieces
in the fuselage squares. Visible at relatively close range, on the ground,
but not enough to break up the 'solid' color block when viewed from a non-
trivial distance.

Again, though, this paint scheme *isn't* intended to 'look good', just be
*VISIBLE*.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Robert,
I could not agree more with your dissertation.

When it comes to safety orange...
Have you ever found any that has decent color retention
or am I thinking of Day-Glo Fluorescent or some such?


Barnyard BOb --

The "best" solution is to use *multiple* colors.

My airplane (non-experimental, but don't hold that against me) is painted
white
on the top surfaces, and dark red/maroon on the underside of the fuselage.
I
figure it helps visibility, in that the light outline should be visible
against most
earth-tone surfaces (snow excepted), and the dark red should stand out
against
most sky colors.

Sort of the reverse of some early camoflage schemes that used light below,
and
dark above. I'm thinking of some WWII era Navy schemes here...

Just a thought.
Henry Bibb
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've never had a near miss from the top or bottom.
It's either a head on or more often... from my left side.

The frontal area of an RV 3 is very small...
like a motorcycle?

The side is a little bigger...
and moving fairly fast.
Near 200 mph most of the time.


Barnyard BOb --

Your hi-vis paint scheme reminds me of something from one of my other
expensive hobbies. Back in the Middle Ages, knights' shields were
painted for IFF purposes. Since it cost money to get a limner to
accurately paint the design (called a 'device' - a 'coat of arms' was
more complicated), but monks transcribing plain text were cheaper, a
written language was developed to describe the images.

Modern Medieval recreationists (see rec.org.sca) use the same language
to describe their own personal devices. Perhaps the most famous is
this one, assigned to a fellow who goes by the moniker "Baldwin of
Erebor" (also known as Derek Foster):

"A dove displayed upon a billet chequey Or and Gules, between a pait
of cockatrices, clad in motley like a fool's. Their feathers are
dimidiated by a tree eradicated, limbed and fructed counter-company."

Links to prove I'm only half-crazy:

http://www.ravenboymusic.com/baldwin_of_erebor.htm (contains photos of
the fellow; don't know how old they are)

http://www.florilegium.org/files/PER...ongs2-msg.html
(ctrl-f to find the text "Copyright 1979 by Derek Foster"

http://atensubmissions.nexiliscom.co...%20of%20Erebor

http://www2.kumc.edu/itc/staff/rknight/baldwin1.gif (a picture of the
horrid thing, drawn by Jeanne-Marie Efferding)

Corrie


(Robert Bonomi) wrote in message ervers.com...

If I was designing a 'maximum visibility' paint scheme, *without*consideration*
of esthetic appeal, assuming that the plane spent most of it's time in
'conventional' attitude, and was _slow_enough_ for color to be meaningful
(e.g., no point in worrying about visibility for something with the flight
characteristics of the SR-71 grin) I'd do something like:

Underside of: wing, horiz. stab and elevators:
Black, with outer 40% being safety orange
Upper side of: wing, horiz stab and elevators:
White, with at least two wide, _diagonal_, stripes of safety orange
Vert. stab and rudder:
safety orange
Fuselage:
'Firewall forward' in safety orange
Behind that, black/white checkerboard, with edges of the 'squares'
down the middle of each side of the craft, and midline down the
top and bottom of the fuselage.

Might even consider doing 'reflective glitter' -- like the use for road signs
in the white squares on the fuselage, and the orange striping on the upper
side of the flight surfaces.

For 'esthetic' appeal, I might add relatively -thin- outlines of chess pieces
in the fuselage squares. Visible at relatively close range, on the ground,
but not enough to break up the 'solid' color block when viewed from a non-
trivial distance.

Again, though, this paint scheme *isn't* intended to 'look good', just be
*VISIBLE*.

Do you have data concerning what color is
more visible than black on a UK rainy day?
If so, source(s) would be appreciated.

On the ground, it is the 'safety orange' that the old Yellow Cab
Company cabs
used to be painted. The Cab Co. researched it, and then did some
experimenting
before deploying it fleet-wide. That paint scheme (safety orange,
with the
black front and rear quarter panels) cut their rate of being
involved in
traffic accidents by more than 20%.


Sure it's not the disgusting color that kept people well away, who in
their right mind wants saftey orange scrape marks down the side of
their cars.:-)
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)



Aloft, the issue is *much* more complicated.

"Visibility" is a function of:
a) contrast to the background against which it is observed,
b) sensitivity of the human eyeball.
c) the -information- needed _from_ detecting the object.
i.e., things are different if you just need to detect "it's
there",
vs. determining 'aspect', and speed.


For "just" spotting an object, a 'checkerboard' of highly
contrasting colors,
with each square having a size _just_ bigger than the angular
acuity of
the human eye at the maximum range that one can determine 'shape',
is
most effective. One reason that the military used that scheme on
a lot of
early trainer aircraft. And why stationary objects like
water-towers (near
a flight path) and radio towers are often _still_ painted in that
kind of
scheme today.


At 'long distance', against a 'lit' sky, it pretty much "doesn't
matter" what
color the thing is, it will appear "dark" -- whether it's painted
black
or bright white.

Color comes into play _only_ when the object is *close* enough for
the
reflection off the object to approximately match the intensity of
the
'background'. At that point, the higher the _contrast_ with the
background,
the better. Orange is good -- unless the background happens to be
an
orange sunset -- or against some fall tree colors. Shades of blue
is generally
a _bad_ choice, for obvious reasons. Gray/grey is definitely
un-good, if
overcast skies are considered. Greens -- not good against
trees/crops, etc.
Red/maroon/purple -- can have problems against a sunset. White?
forget
about being seen against snow. and some clouds. Yellow? hard to
distinguish
against 'bright' backgrounds. In short, you can't win. wry
grin

The "best" solution is to use *multiple* colors.



If I was designing a 'maximum visibility' paint scheme,
*without*consideration*
of esthetic appeal, assuming that the plane spent most of it's time
in
'conventional' attitude, and was _slow_enough_ for color to be
meaningful
(e.g., no point in worrying about visibility for something with the
flight
characteristics of the SR-71 grin) I'd do something like:

Underside of: wing, horiz. stab and elevators:
Black, with outer 40% being safety orange
Upper side of: wing, horiz stab and elevators:
White, with at least two wide, _diagonal_, stripes of safety orange
Vert. stab and rudder:
safety orange
Fuselage:
'Firewall forward' in safety orange
Behind that, black/white checkerboard, with edges of the 'squares'
down the middle of each side of the craft, and midline down the
top and bottom of the fuselage.

Might even consider doing 'reflective glitter' -- like the use for
road signs
in the white squares on the fuselage, and the orange striping on
the upper
side of the flight surfaces.

For 'esthetic' appeal, I might add relatively -thin- outlines of
chess pieces
in the fuselage squares. Visible at relatively close range, on the
ground,
but not enough to break up the 'solid' color block when viewed from
a non-
trivial distance.

Again, though, this paint scheme *isn't* intended to 'look good',
just be
*VISIBLE*.

In article ,
RR Urban wrote:

(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

Lotsa' good stuff snipped for brevity

For 'esthetic' appeal, I might add relatively -thin- outlines of chess pieces
in the fuselage squares. Visible at relatively close range, on the ground,
but not enough to break up the 'solid' color block when viewed from a non-
trivial distance.

Again, though, this paint scheme *isn't* intended to 'look good', just be
*VISIBLE*.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Robert,
I could not agree more with your dissertation.

When it comes to safety orange...
Have you ever found any that has decent color retention
or am I thinking of Day-Glo Fluorescent or some such?


Barnyard BOb --



*NOT* Day-Glo, which, by the way, is a trademarked brand. The actual
formulation of the dye may even be patented. Original application was
strictly for paper stocks -- signs, flyers, bumper-stickers, etc.
KRYLON has some spray acrylic paints that are similar in intensity,
but they do have a fading issue on prolonged exposure to sunlight.

I mean the one that was common on "Yellow Cabs", circa the 1950's. (before
Day Glo even _existed_ Also used on wing tips, etc. of many military,
particularly Navy, trainers.

The auto-paint version was extremely durable on the Cabs. Could hardly
tell a 15 year old panel, from one that was 3 months off the assembly-line.

I *think* Day Glo _does_ make genuine flourscent paints. Daylight-durable
ones. *EXPENSIVE* though -- like several _hundred_ dollars a gallon. And,
it requires a clear-coat on top of it.

Have you ever found any that has decent color retention
or am I thinking of Day-Glo Fluorescent or some such?


Barnyard BOb --



*NOT* Day-Glo, which, by the way, is a trademarked brand. The actual
formulation of the dye may even be patented. Original application was
strictly for paper stocks -- signs, flyers, bumper-stickers, etc.
KRYLON has some spray acrylic paints that are similar in intensity,
but they do have a fading issue on prolonged exposure to sunlight.

I mean the one that was common on "Yellow Cabs", circa the 1950's. (before
Day Glo even _existed_ Also used on wing tips, etc. of many military,
particularly Navy, trainers.

The auto-paint version was extremely durable on the Cabs. Could hardly
tell a 15 year old panel, from one that was 3 months off the assembly-line.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I did state "some such" as well as the trade marked "Day-Glo".
No need to get sidetracked or hung up over this minutia. g

FWIW...
On drab, dark and dank NYC streets with cabs inching along,
orange might be a good brand recognition thing, but from all
that I have gleaned so far...

A taxi cab environment or fire engine environment is
NOT the same as an aircraft environment. Nor are the
various lighting conditions equal. Drawing parallels without
convincing appropriate reinforcing data is pure folly.

When it comes to AIRCRAFT visibility, who can point to appropriate
research recommending orange as an OUTSTANDING color?
What might its value be for exceptionally small aircraft approaching
head on in bright light with closure rates of nearly 400 mph?
In one scenario... the aircraft begins as a tiny black spec....
regardless of actual color, less than two miles out. In less than
18 IDEAL seconds you have a near miss or a brutal collision.


Barnyard BOb --

RR Urban wrote:

When it comes to AIRCRAFT visibility, who can point to appropriate
research recommending orange as an OUTSTANDING color?

I can't point you to research regarding a specific color,
but I can tell you that someone, Keith Ferris (the artist)
ISTR, has lectured on color and spotting.

What might its value be for exceptionally small aircraft approaching
head on in bright light with closure rates of nearly 400 mph?

At these closure rates and times and considering you're not
always staring directly at the target in question the differences
in colors are probably minimal.

Dave 'glint' Hyde

In article , RR Urban wrote:


When it comes to AIRCRAFT visibility, who can point to appropriate
research recommending orange as an OUTSTANDING color?
What might its value be for exceptionally small aircraft approaching
head on in bright light with closure rates of nearly 400 mph?
In one scenario... the aircraft begins as a tiny black spec....
regardless of actual color, less than two miles out. In less than
18 IDEAL seconds you have a near miss or a brutal collision.


Why not use lights instead of paint? I would guess
that strobes on your wing tips and a pulsing Landing light
would make you far more visible than any paint scheme, even
in daylight.