White or coloured helmets?
Message 1177:
Hi, Steve's reflections on this matter of what constitutes an
acceptable range of allowable modifications (vis-a-vis the P-series helmets) are
worth further rumination. I personally would very much like to believe this (that a
broader range of permissible mods was allowed than we currently think existed). I feel
that certainly this was true back in the older, earlier days (say the late 40s and early
50s), when improvisation was almost a norm (due to materiel shortages), but my primary
nagging questions center on that period from about 1955 through 1965, a time-frame in
which a number of further constraints were imposed upon MAJCOM life support units in an
attempt to 'shape-up' certain sloppy or careless practices. This was the era in which most
USAF helmet decorations were increasingly frown upon and 'pure white paint' (or damn close
to it) was mandated as the only truly acceptable appearance for a SAC or TAC helmet; ORIs
and IG visits frequently selectively scrutinized elements like Personal Equipment, etc.,
for compliance, furthermore, depending upon how tight-assed the IG happened to be at the
moment (or whether or not his wife was nagging him into a nervous state about always being
away from home on a mission).
-----------------------
One further thought on helmet paint: At least in 1950s era SAC, in bombers like the (then)
new B-47, with its long clear bubble canopy (as well as in the US Martin built
B-57 version of the UK Canberra and many other aircraft of this early period), the
effects of solar heat glare through these early, clear bubble canopies also worked to
discourage use of darker helmet colors (such as red, etc.). SAC in particular was
concerned about overheating effects of the sun on B-47 crews who were frequently flying in
hot, sunny environments. One result was an early MAJCOM directive making anything but
white helmet paint unacceptable for SAC crews. A friend at the Castle AFB aviation museum,
who was a former B-47 pilot in the 50s, and who is now a curator there, assures me that
even despite massive refrigeration plants that these planes carried to help keep things
cool, the heat under those long transparent canopies was brutal while the aircraft was
still on the ground, on sunny days. It was only much later that sophisticated Lexan type
polymers incorporating inherent sun-shielding pigmentations were used to help reduce these
solar heating effects (example: F-16 canopy, etc.). These concerns made sense to the ivory
tower savants in Wright-Pat aircrew system labs who studied all of these ergonometric
considerations, of course, using a 1950s conceptual model. Of
course, somewhat later (in the Vietnam theatre of ops), all of these creature comfort
considerations suddenly went flying out the window as the mission changed from one of
strictly continental air defense and high altitude strategic bombing to overseas offensive
ops in a hot, tropical climate. Crews grudgingly tolerated darker, drabber, and far
more useful (inherently dark) camouflage color schemes on their helmets and flight
suits out of recognition that they might well help save their nether extremities in
the event of an emergency punch-out. The heat in SEA was of course several orders of
magnitude more brutal than anything experienced by SAC B-47 crews in the 50s, flying
missions in the ZI, but by that time, advances had also been made in aircraft air
conditioning systems, also (still not enough to fully cope with typical harsh
Vietnam heat & humidity, however). Cheers, DocBoink
Message 1183:
Hi DocBoink, In my RDAF tech order for the HGU-2A/P-D (dated 1977) it is stated that the
helmet is painted white in order to reflect sun rays. Later, however, the helmets were
toned down to medium gray. One of my friends used to be an interceptor pilot flying the
F-104G Starfighter. According to him it was relatively easy to spot a low- level Draken or
F-100 fighter bomber from above even if they were painted dark green. Often the first
thing they saw was the glaring white helmet. Cheers, Bluelight 14