1 10 1 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/d116b54c46b95f54ef252e9d5d158c3d.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=nE%7EOLsEZfy-yzGcgk80jy8wc38IiP5wXX539pQSedlzI2I%7Eko4iwu5v59hO8T3QTaUNSCUiqxS40ewXvxKM%7E6JuOv9tm3dJaHsyymbBITTMINIBb1I89fQ7FLidB6MvSHxGEuG7mqp-59fFE8V%7E7JVN2%7EPOzzYW-aRAkabQSIFKRRk6HyX%7ESPw50ufwpoRvwhr-v12qUOa7p9tI0ZAquzodt-M46sXfAhQxCuHsIek3YIxKgV58yXqGCUieWDuhs1vXqEKxdX0-CQLjMmJqgJiWRyrTfmFSMYvb1nsd3Hf79uegesdqc%7Et%7EgWcAiF90SnQvmuK5sa42CDsNJOYC1oA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM cf95337ffc7a259c8736a4a2beb93822 PDF Text Text A Spot of research: investigating the previous paint schemes of “G for George” Andrew Pearce Australian War Memorial Abstract: One of the primary icons of the Australian War Memorial, the Lancaster Bomber “G for George”, was removed from display in 1999 so that conservation work could be conducted. At this point it was known that during the most recent repaint in 1977, decisions on the position and style of the markings had been based on incorrect information. Conservation staff wanted to discover the original positions and styles of the markings. This paper discusses the conservation process of repainting and rerepresenting “G for George”as it appears today and will focus on two topics: 1. Which investigative techniques and what evidence have been used to establish the operational markings of “G for George”? 2. In a “presentation-driven” display environment, what issues govern the presentation of the “lived in” aspects of an object? Introduction Recent conservation work by the staff of the Australian War Memorial has endeavored to give Avro Lancaster W4783 “G for George” the same external appearance as it had when it completed operational service in 1944. Between 1994 and 2003 the aircraft had been repainted on 3 separate occasions but, fortunately, very little paint removal had been done prior to the addition of new paint layers. This gave the conservation staff an opportunity to investigate the underlying paint coats and determine “G for George”’s correct wartime marking and camouflage scheme. However, the discovery of errors, mismatches between sections and stenciling mistakes presented the quandary of how accurately these quirks should be replicated. During this work, a number of questions were raised and worked through: • • • • • • Who decides what the correct appearance for an historical aircraft is? What information is relevant in making this decision? What information sources are available? What investigative techniques are of use? Which information sources have priority? Having decided what the historically authentic appearance should be, what issues does it raise if this appearance is not one that the “general public”, “those in the know” or “the powers that be” consider to be acceptable? 1.1 Development of a presentation approach Over the previous decade or so, the Large Technology Conservation team at the Australian War Memorial has been developing a new approach to the preparation and presentation of objects for display. 1 �Where an object is to be repainted as part of its treatment (not always the case, a prime example being the Messerschmidt Bf109G aircraft), every attempt is made to research the story and history of that particular object, and then determine in which action or era of use the object tells the most historically relevant wartime story. Efforts are then focused on effectively and accurately portraying the object with the particular appearance/configuration associated with those events. As an illustration, the Wirraway training aircraft currently on display in Aircraft Hall was used extensively for the training of RAAF pilots during the Second World War. Its most historically significant feature however, is that it is the only known Wirraway to have ever shot down a Japanese Zero fighter aircraft. For this reason, the Wirraway is no longer painted in its air-training colours, but rather the colours it bore at the time of this significant event. In attempting to present large technology objects “as they appeared at the time” the current presentation approach has evolved. This rationale has informed the repainting/presentation decisions of a number of Memorial aircraft including the Kittyhawk, Sea Fury and “G for George”. As an example, some years ago, the Memorial’s German V1 “Doodlebug” flying bomb was being conserved prior to being placed on display in the Second World War gallery. The V1 had been repainted after the war, and chemical stripping methods were being used to carefully strip these layers of non-original paint in the hope that the original paint surface would be aesthetically suitable for display. During the stripping process, it was noted that many of the exposed underlying wartime paint layers were of unusual colours (for example brown instead of sky blue) or damaged (for example scorched rather than being a pristine, uniform painted surface). Further investigation and analysis of historical photographs showed that, indeed, many V1 flying bombs had been constructed from mismatched parts and did not exhibit a uniform appearance. 2 �Figure 1: Period photograph of V1 flying bomb showing paint scheme Unfortunately, the painted surface after stripping, although showing many details previously not visible, was quite patchy and still had too much overpaint remaining to be suitable for display. Further stripping of overpaint to produce a superior visual result would have been at the detriment of original material (for example stencils). Thus the decision was made to repaint the V1, using the exposed wartime surfaces as the master template for the paint scheme. This treatment resulted in a relic that, while repainted, appears very much as we believe it would have while in service. Figure 2: Memorial V1 flying bomb in current display configuration 3 �1.2 Developing the intended presentation of “G for George” The 460 Squadron Lancaster bomber W4783 “G for George” flew nearly 90 missions over Europe up until June of 1944. At this point it was sent to the AV Roe works at the Woodford RAF base for repainting and refitting, prior to being flown out to Australia for publicity and War Effort fundraising purposes. So what activities make “G for George”most important? To be sure, the flight out to Australia and the Victory Loan tours were notable, but by far, it is “G for George”’s Bomber Command service, its large number of combat missions, and the sacrifice of the crews associated with the Lancaster Squadrons that “G for George” represents, that make the aircraft an item of significance. Certainly the more recent repaints, while not being of historical relevance for the purposes of the Memorial, still serve as evidence of the use of “G for George” as a wartime fundraising tool and as a museum piece. In the interests of preserving this historical information it was decided that, rather than attempting to strip the upper paint layers (should it have proven feasible), a more ethical approach would be to investigate the original markings and then repaint the aircraft according to these over the top of the previous paint layers. In picking a period to represent through repainting, there is really only one viable option. That is to show “G for George”with its “scoreboard” of 90 successful operations complete, and in the camouflage and marking scheme present on the aircraft at the end of its active service, prior to its refurbishment and repainting for the publicity flight out to Australia. 1.3 Researching the intended presentation Given the pressures of wartime activity, little time was allocated to airfield photography. For this reason, very few photographs are available that show the wartime markings and paint scheme present on “G for George”. There are a few images showing the “scoreboard”, a number taken near the crew exit door and some wide shots of the starboard side of the fuselage. To the best of our knowledge, there are no unobscured, wide shots of the port side of the fuselage and no photographs taken from above the aircraft showing the camouflage on the wings. Figure 3: Archival photograph of starboard fuselage of “G for George” 4 �Figure 4: Archival photograph of port fuselage of “G for George” “G for George” was repainted prior to its flight out to Australia, and then again in 1955 and 1977. Aside from some localized paint stripping conducted on the wingtips and sections of the rear fuselage in 1944 during the refurbishment process, underlying paint layers were left intact during each of the repaintings. Instead of having a repainted aircraft with its wartime markings destroyed, the Memorial was presented with an invaluable opportunity to examine and research the original markings preserved under the subsequent paint layers. This information was then used to reproduce the wartime markings. In analyzing the wartime paintwork, transmission x-ray techniques were not viable due to the presence of multiple heavy coats of paint and a metallic substrate. Standard paint flake cross sectioning techniques clearly show the sequence of layers laid down on a surface; however making sense of the positional information they provide once the samples are removed from the surface is problematic. Relating the layers back to a design such as a camouflage pattern would be extremely time-consuming. As an alternative to these techniques, Memorial conservators decided to adapt a technique known as “spot rubbing”. This enables the layers of colour applied at a particular point to be viewed in sequence. Spot rubbing involves taking fine grade emery paper and rubbing a small circle through the paintwork to the undercoat layer. The sequence of paint layers applied to the surface then appears as a series of concentric coloured rings around the perimeter of the spot. Careful rubbing can also be used to widen the exposed colour layer associated with a particular spot, enabling paint matching of the colour to be conducted (a facility not available through thin film cross sectioning). 5 �Figure 5: Spot rubbing on “G for George” By using the manufacturer’s camouflage specification as a guide as to the likely location of markings, targeted spot sampling could be applied to track the course of the camouflage. Due to the “feathering” of spray painted camouflage edges, a definite point of change between green and brown cannot truly be said to exist. Nonetheless, refining of the spot rubbing technique has enabled the zone within which the camouflage demarcation occurs to be narrowed to a region approximately 100mm in width. As previously mentioned, some regions of the airframe had been paint stripped during the previous refurbishment processes resulting in loss of evidence of original markings. Where possible, the available historical photographs of “G for George” were used to locate and reproduce missing markings. If this could not be done, the original AV Roe camouflage specifications were used. So, the information actually found on the aircraft provided the primary evidence for the painting scheme, with secondary evidence coming from well documented photographs known to be from the correct time. Any further gaps were being filled by referring to the official manufacturing specifications. And having gone to such trouble to determine the correct information, what was the result? Was it what the staff/managers/public expected and what was the reaction? 6 �Figure 6: “G for George” as presented today 1.4 The expected result vs the object As a general rule, aircraft restorations in the past have resulted in what one might classify as “pretty” aircraft. Institutions and aviation collectors have had a tendency to restore their aircraft to almost concourse conditions. The paint is all shiny, the markings and stencils are perfect and all the colours match. The finished product appears more like an enthusiast’s model kit than an operational aircraft. In contrast, the evidence found on “G for George” and in photographs indicated a very different result, including mis-matched paint colours, mis-aligned paint transitions, stencils with reversed lettering, lettering applied freehand rather than by stencil and a range of other non-standard details. These unexpected aspects of the markings served as evidence for many features of “G for George”’s military service. They demonstrated the distributed method of manufacture used to produce Lancasters, showed that some sections had been damaged and replaced while the aircraft was in service and reflected the personality and individuality of the ground crew and airmen who served with the aircraft. They were thus of enormous importance to the full understanding of the object and its service conditions, and to the presentation of “G for George” as an object which had genuinely flown in service. 2.1 A presentation dilemma Increasingly, the modern museum environment is heavily presentation driven. Appearance is everything. Displays, objects, text panels, lighting, multimedia presentation and the surrounding furnishings all combine to produce the final “museum experience”. So, in such a presentation driven setting, what place is there for an object with a “less presentable” appearance? Does the “truthful” conservation and restoration of an object’s original appearance come at the expense of the display? Certainly, when many hundreds of thousands of dollars can be spent producing a gallery environment, one can easily see why anything that undermined that work would be considered less than desirable. Specifically, what issues does the presentation of “G for George” raise and how do they affect the final experience? 7 �2.2 The Issues 1. Comparison to similar aircraft elsewhere: Worldwide, there are a number of exceedingly high profile Lancasters held in collections. These include “S for Sugar” at the RAF Museum in Hendon in the UK and “City of Lincoln” flown by the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF). Although in the case of “City of Lincoln” the aircraft is regularly flown, the appearance of both these aircraft corresponds to the “model aeroplane” look. The paintwork and stenciling is neat, the colours match and the exterior finish is glossy in appearance. Although they do not represent an accurate image of the way such aircraft appeared under combat conditions, the presence of these aircraft creates a public expectation that this is how aircraft of this type are supposed to look. Figure 7: “City of Lincoln” BBMF Lancaster 2. “But it never used to look like that.” When doing a major conservation/restoration project on a well known icon, altering the appearance from that to which people have become accustomed will always meet some resistance. In the case of “G for George”, the aircraft had been on public display for over 40 years. As far as many people were concerned, they “knew” what it looked like. 3. “The military would never tolerate untidiness or lack of discipline like that.” A number of the features now present on “G for George”, including the mismatched paint colours, hand-applied lettering, reversed stencils and the swastikas on the propeller spinners, do not represent the generally accepted idea of “military precision”. 8 �4. Divergence from popular folklore: Below the cockpit on the port side of the fuselage, “G for George” has a graphical representation of all the successful bombing raids flown. Markings of this type are quite common on military aircraft and are referred to by many names including ‘strike markings’, ‘tally board’, ‘scoreboard’ and ‘bomb log’. For some fifty five years, next to the 33rd mission marking on “G for George”’s bomb log (corresponding to a mission flown on 27th April 1943), a red flag has been painted with a hammer and sickle. The flag is a substantial part of the mythology associated with “G for George” and the reason for its presence has been the subject of much conjecture. Figure 8: Pre 1999 representation of 33rd mission marking Over the years, at least four alternative solutions have been put forward to explain the flag: • The pilot was Goulevitch, a Russian, hence the flag. This is incorrect; the pilot on this mission was named Rose. Goulevitch piloted “G for George” on its 53rd mission, targeting Munich in September of 1943. • • The mission overflew Germany and landed in Russia before heading home. This is also incorrect; the mission came back from Duisburg without heading on to Russia. Duisburg is only around three hundred and fifty miles from Binbrook so this trip was actually one of George’s shortest missions. • 9 The pilot was Rose, roses are red, Russians are “Reds”, therefore… (Clutching at straws here aren’t we?) And finally, the “All for Joe” reason. Bomber command was flying missions in support of the campaign being waged by the Russians and the slogan “All for Joe” (Stalin) was in widespread use. At the time of the 33rd mission, bomber command ceased flying missions to support the Russians and the flag was painted to symbolise “No more for Joe”. �Figure 9: Screen capture from Peter Dunn's "Australia @ War" web page at www.ozatwar.com 10 �Figure 10: 83rd mission bomb log Unfortunately, all the above reasons miss one key point. If you look closely at a wartime photograph of the 33rd mission marking and the flag that accompanies it (such as the one taken at the time of the 83rd mission), it can be clearly seen that the flag in question is not actually a hammer and sickle at all. This is supported by the detailed paint rubbings conducted by the conservation staff researching the bomb log. Rather than being a hammer and sickle, the image in the flag appears to be a circle with a “Y” in the centre (somewhat like an inverted Mercedes Benz logo). It would appear that at some point (currently believed to be the time of the 1944 Woodford refurbishment) the deteriorated paintwork of the bomb log was overpainted by someone who somewhat zealously interpreted the red flag with the curved yellow markings as a hammer and sickle. This flag then remained on the bomb log, repainted in various configurations, for another fifty five years, while people created reasons for its existence. 11 �Figure 11: Close up of 33rd mission flag Figure 12: Current repaint of 33rd mission flag In repainting the bomb log with the corrected flag, we are effectively saying that none of the above theories could possibly be correct. This has the potential to cause a loss of face to those who have claimed to solve the mystery. Fortunately we have given them another mystery to replace it: what is the origin and meaning of the new (old) flag at the 33rd mission? 12 �2.3 Dealing with the issues Faced with the possibility of people having pre-conceived ideas of the final outcome of the conservation treatment (even before the initial disassembly of the aircraft had been completed) it was vital that we deal with the issues rather than just ignoring them until the grand opening of the new display. Fundamental to dealing with the issues was a very open process of communication. As soon as information came to light that could modify our original plans (either photographic evidence or spot rubbings), we made sure that curators and managers were informed. In this way the significance and authenticity of the evidence, its historical importance and its effect on the final product could be openly discussed with the exhibition team. By following this approach nasty shocks and extreme sticking points were largely avoided. As the treatment progressed people “knew what they were getting” and more importantly, knew that any changes to their original mental image were based on sound analysis and strong historical evidence. In the public arena a good flow of communication was similarly of high importance. Conservation staff supplied the Memorial website with regular updates on the progress of the Lancaster work. In this way, “G for George” was not seen as a major icon which was removed for five years and then returned to display looking “wrong”, but rather an icon which had been methodically and carefully worked on to return it to a more historically authentic appearance. Given a formalized process for using the available evidence and incorporating any relevant changes into the treatment planning, what was the final agreed outcome? It was decided that, where possible, any historically verifiable details that could be shown to have been present on “G for George” at the point where it finished active military operations should be as faithfully reproduced as possible. This means that mismatched camouflage colours, hand-applied lettering, stenciling errors and the like have been included. It also means that features which were found to be incorrect (such as the “Russian flag”) have been corrected. Due to the display orientation of “G for George”, many of the more obvious mismatches in paint finish, while accurately reproduced, are not readily apparent to under casual inspection and do not challenge visitors to the Memorial. 13 �2.5 The final reaction During the course of conserving “G for George”, those aspects of the reproduced appearance that were considered unusual (mismatched paint), irreverent (swastikas painted on the propeller spinners) or unsightly (hand applied dinghy release and first aid markings) were the subject of extensive negotiation. A good deal of evidence had to be provided in order to reassure managers that these features were being reproduced with good reason. On viewing the finished product, the general consensus was that the conservation treatment had resulted in an historic object that was faithfully reproduced to an exceptionally high standard. It was agreed that the approach taken, rather than being substandard in its result, was actually at the leading edge of modern museum display techniques. Figure 13: “G for George” port wing - current display Figure 14: “G for George” starboard wing - current display 14 �The public reaction has been interesting to say the least. Many visitors, far from being at all bothered by any unusual aspects of “G for George”’s appearance, do not seem to notice anything unusual at all. Those that do notice a difference sometimes comment that the aircraft appears somehow more “real” and “lived in”. We believe this would not have been the result had a more pristine traditional restoration approach been taken. It is the children visiting the Memorial however, who seem to be more likely to notice the quirks. It is rare that a school group will visit “G for George” without around half the students present asking the guide “How come it’s got Nazi symbols on it?” Conclusion It was the intention of the Memorial’s conservation staff to use all our research and all the resources on hand to portray G for George” as accurately as we possibly could. From time to time there were quite legitimate concerns raised about the final effect our proposed repainting would produce. Certainly, some of the new paint features have raised substantial public interest and comment. Nonetheless the response seems to have been universally positive. We are very pleased to report that the reactions from stakeholders (particularly Bomber Command veterans from 460, 463 and 467 Squadrons and their families) have also been highly favourable. As “G for George” is one of “their” aircraft, their positive attitude towards the conservation treatment is highly valued by both the staff and the volunteers who worked on the aircraft. References Peter Dunn's "Australia @ War" web page at www.ozatwar.com 15 � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/0f904db4ecf2faafa76e253e0883587f.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=ONj-TUWHLtQXzxB2gW4abwAs2SjBu11YPLT7p2jXFszhwgzc0Fxb3CO3AUx4O-w8w0VYwvBDlLmloctk%7Es%7EeOoHFePspXRCxjL7sHDQ7ATA5TeRFknmYUOwhLBzTkXhZMPuedJberpjJXp7oARaOgH6JPpJhSvfEhcNYRmrB7g2YFqTli8waoYdZ6-WSwr8%7EC7yGh9GoQtZrSgj5qMBOWs5q1g5e2lGmYuuJLSumPEXP8JTzVuNOpijNDbZGLZZKVmngOJsraZpWQryNB6Yz6SOZWh0qtgkfplUtjq8aB-2yDK59vZCEIl1SbZlj5WllHeTZBhjHjizPGrh8FYgE%7Ew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 744076f289ab2f7ccb1bddbcf3eaf152 PDF Text Text A spot of research: investigating the previous paint schemes of “G for George” Andrew Pearce - Question and answer session Chris Knapp: The idea of stencils and whatever being wrong and sometimes being a bit contentious and upsetting people – there is a positive side, it generates interest and you get people talking about it and you can explain things. An example we had recently – we’ve just finished a Blackburn Buccaneer and we’ve got all the drawings for the stencils and locations. And we ditched that because it’s totally wrong for our aircraft. We’ve got the photographs so we’ve got better accuracy. Do you know why the paint was mismatched on the wings? Is it at the wing join? Andrew Pearce: Yes, it’s quite simply a product of the production methods of the Lancaster. It’s because of the dispersed manufacture. Chris Knapp: It’s not due to battle damage and a wing being replaced? Andrew Pearce: In the case of the tail planes of George we know definitely they have been replaced. There’s quite detailed records that were taken by Harry Tickle, G for George’s senior fitter. He kept a very detailed log of what had been damaged. From our records we know that an incendiary fell from a Lancaster that was flying above George, burnt through the top skin of the tail plane, burnt through the trim cables inside the tailplane, burnt through the bottom skin of the tail plane and fell out. The Lancaster tailplane has no repair in that section. We know it has to have come from a different aircraft. So some of the colour variations are yes, due to battle damage and replacement. Tony Coleman: I can relate to the problem of colours and people telling you it’s the wrong colour. With the tram system in Hobart – all our trams were the one colour from 1935 on. The trams that I’m working on are 1915-1917. There’s nobody in Hobart that can remember what those original colours were. I’ve got the colours from scrapes, but I still have to argue the whole thing of the 1935 colours. And that’s the other thing about colour photographs – I can only get black and white photos obviously of that period. But I can pick up the difference because they were green and cream – the trams were painted during the First World War because green paint became scarce and they were actually painted white/cream at that stage. John Kemister: The funny thing about the Lancaster project – the Russian flag actually, in the repaints, was put on in four renditions. How many variations of a hammer and sickle can you get? � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Spot of research: investigating the previous paint schemes of “G for George” Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Pearce Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 aircraft authenticity camouflage conservation engagement restoration significance Treatment and Maintenance