4i•

i 'U.S. Naval AirDevelopment

CenterJohnsville, Pennsylvavia

NADC-MR-6619 30 September 1966

C CAMOUFLAGE PRINTING OF NOMEY SUMMERPLYING COVERALLS

* Naval Air Systems CommandWeptask RAE 20J 010/20 11/F012 10 02

Problem Assignments J44 AE22-7 and 010-AE22-13

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED

|CLEARINGHOUSE fr'OR F¶EDERAL SCX.ENTIFIC AN,,D

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Herdaopy N Otis.

S@ E' D C,$ *sc / -pJ D

the1 d t[4: 1966 jLimitations concerning the distribution of

this report and revelation of ifs contentsSappear on the inside of this cover. p-..-a y'.-

SDEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYU. S. NAVAL AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER

JOHNSVILLEWARMINSTER. PA. 10974

MR

650230 September 1966

From: Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville,Warminster, Pennsylvania 18974

To: Chief, Naval Air Systems Command

Subject: NADC-MR-6619: Weptask RAE 20J 010/2021/F012 10 02, Problem Assign-ment J44 AE22-7, 010-AE22-13, Camouflage Printing of Nom':x SummerFlying Coveralls; letter report concerning

Ref: (a) BuWeps ltr RAAE-2211/258:RCB 15 March 1965(b) MCLFDC Project #51-64-02, Flight Clothing and Survival

Equipment. Third Interim Report

Encl: (1) Table I: Comparative Temperature Rise

1. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effectiveness ofcamouflage print coveralls as compared to the standard plain olive green gar-ment. Reference (a) stated that the Navy will deliver to the Marine CorpsLanding Force Development Center (MCLFDC) 40 staple Nomex summer flying cover-alls printed with the ERDL 1948 pattern and colors and as a control 40 of thestandard suits. Therefore, under the authority of the subject problem assign-ments, this laboratory undertook the procurement and delivery of these items.in addition, seven camouflage and two olive green coveralls were delivered forcombat evaluation to Helicopter Squadron-261 in Viet Nam.

2. The coveralls were manufactured according to specifications supplied by theAir Crew Equipment Branch of the Naval Air Engineering Center Lncorporatingpart #NAEC Spl-lO0, a prototype of the present suit (MIl,-C-81i26B). Threeoz/yd 2 staple, herringbone weave fabric was used i'or both the plain and thecamouflage coveralls. The camouflage pattern was roller printed with thefour-color U.S. Army camouflage pattern in a resir-bonded pigment system.This pattern, developed jointly by the U.S. Army 'aboratory, Natick, Mass. andthe Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Va. and formerly known as the ERDI.1948 pattern, consists of black, brown, dark green and light green areas com-pletely covering the original material. Because the camouflaged fabric wasproduced on a "best effort" basl: by the Cranston Print Works, no opportunitywas available for controlling fabric characteristics, such as shrinkage, colorfastness, hand, etc..

3. Flammability and heat transfer studies were co.tducted on the camouflagefabric and compared with those on the plain fabric to determine the effect ofprint dyes on the thermal properties of Nomex. Fror the results (enclosure (1))it is seen that, although the heat transfer is slightly greater after applicationof the camouflage, this increase is not significant in terms of degradation ofthe flame resistant characteristics of the fabric or of the thermal protectionthat the material provides.

4. The overall opinion expressed by the nine pilots in Viet Nam, (a Navy

Medical Unit) was very favorable; the suit was comfortable temperature-wise,easily laundered and quite acceptable, however it was felt that such improve-ment could be realized from a few minor design changes. It was noted that:

(a) the wrist sleeves were too tight to roll back and therefore were oftenaltered, (b) the flaps on the :ippers we~re tacked down; the pilots preferredthat the zipper flaps be opta on three sides, (c) the lower left leg pocketflap caught on the helicopter collective, an occurrence considered dangerous.The camouflage pattern was considered good though somewhat too bright. Fin-ally, all the pilots considered the texture of the camouflage cloth roughbut "to a minimal degree". No dermatological problems were encountered.

S. The MCLFDC report, reference (b), discusses the test procedures followedin evaluating the coveralls, the features considered, and the results. Thecamouflage suits were examined to determine comfort, durability, compatibilitywith various aircraft, escape/evasion qualities and suitability for MarineCorps aviation use. The coveralls were considered excellent insofar as com-fort, construction, durability, color-fastness and retention ot flame resistanceafter repeated washings. However, shrinkage on washing was considered to be ex-cessive, and the design of the coverall was found deficient in several aspects:(a) sleeve cuffs too tight, (b) zipper flap-covers made pockets inaccessible,(c) leg-, and crotch too long and bulky, (d) absence of knife pocket. The reportstated that "correction of these deficiencies is essential", to make the suitacceptable and further recommends that if the suit is finally accepted, twoshould be issued to each person.

6. The concealment capability of the camouflage in direct comparison with thecontrol suits was assessed visually in the field. In a green leafy environmentthe camouflage item provided slightly more concealment than the olive greencontrol, while in an environment predominaztly brown, both suits contrastedsharply with the background. The latter finding is not surprising since thereis no light brown whatever in the camouflage pattern and lark green, a stronglycontrasting color, is the basic one in both suits. Indeed, it is extremelydoubtful that any pattern could be universally highly effective, for that pat-tern which blends well in one environment must stand out in an environment pre-dominated by a contrasting color.

7. It is concluded from the laboratory tests on the camouflage fabric andfrom the field reports that (a) Camouflage printing of staple Nomex in aresin-bonded pigment system does not significantly alter the flame-resistantcharacteristics of Nomex, (b) The camouflage system considered here offersvery little advantage over the ordinary olive-green Nomex suits in concealmentin green leafy areas arnd neither suit contributes to concealment in predomi-rantly brown surroundings.

2

8. In light of the recommendations made in the MCLFDC report and the rezultsof the laboratory studies it is recommended that: (a) Cognizant a ,hority care-fully weigh the small advantages gained in the camouflage versus the controlsuit against the extra expense of manufacturing the suit and the logistics in-volved in issuing yet another piece of gear. (b) The design of the coverall bestudied, keeping in mind the changes suggested in the MCLFDC report (rez..rence(b) ). (c) This phase of the Problem Assignments be conaidered completed andterminated with this report.

This report was prepared by Maria A. Chi.anta, reviewed by Alice M.Stoll, and approved by Carl F. Schmidt, Research Director, Aerospace MedicalResearch Department.

By Direceion

Copy to:

Chief, NAVAIRSYSCOM (AIR 531) (4)Chief, NAVAIRSYSCOM (AIR 5311G) (1)Chief, NAVAIRSYSCOM (AIR 5311A) (10)Chief, BuMed (Code 711) (2)ACEL (1)Wright-Patterson AFB (ASNPCB) (2)NAEC AML Attn: Miss Hays (1)Wright-Patterson AFB ASD (1)DDC (20)NAVAIRSYSCOM (AIR-604) (1)U.S. Army Natick Lab. Natick, Mass.(Clothing Division) (1)

3

/

TABLE I

COMPARATIVE TEMPERATURE RISE

Sample Thickness Temp. Rise

(Staple Nomex) (mm) ('C/H)

Control

Olive Green 0.315* 17.74

Camouflage

Dark Green 0.319 19.36

Light Green 0.217 18.17

Brown 0.312 18.18

Black 0.310 19.47

2i

H = Thermal flux in cal/cm 2/sec.

* = Average of 5 readings

Enclosure (1)

- ...- =

secuoity cdossiftcation

1. OI~iATI 0 ATIWTY Connaftejdcw)11. RPORT $6CUR1TV C LAgSSFCATS@N

F'Aerospace Medical Rescarch Department Unclassified

Camouflage Printing of Nomex Summer Flying Coveralls.

4. OESCRIPTIVI MOTES (T1pp of n.ow, sou hwholve diol.)

Final ReportS. AUTHOR(S) (Lost fte. l~in no&., MIo~td)

Chianta, Maria A.

6. 11EPORT DAYS7TTTLN.OEPGS 7 a r"p

Ga. CONTRACT Vt GRANT NO. to. C.RIOINA TORIG REPORT NUNSSR(8)

66 PROJECT NO. NADC-MR-6619

Weptask RAE 20J 010/2021/F012 10 02 ________________________

'Problem Assignment J44 AE22-7 and ~N()(n~ms~e~~Ia~010- AF22- 13.

10. A VA IL ABILITY/LIMII ATION NOTICES

DI STRIBUTION OF T[HIS I)OCUMEN-T1 IS UNLIMITE6.

11. SUPPLELMENTARY NOTE8 I2. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVTY

1S. ABSTRACT

An investigati-rn was carried out to determine the effectiveness ofNomex summer flying coveralls printed with a camtoulflage pattern as compared withthe standard plain olive green coveralls. Laboratory tests indicated thatcamouflage printing of staple Nom~ex in a resin-bonded pigment system does notsignificantly alter the flame-resistant characteristics of Nomex. Field testswith Marine units showed that the camouflage system considered here offered verylittle advantage over the ordinary olive-green Nomex suits in concealment ingreen leafy areas and neither suit contributes to concealment in predominantlybrown surroundings.

OD I JAN 4 1473 UNCLASSIFIEDscuft~ Chmdcaidoe

UNC LASS IF IEDS"Ecrt Classification_______ ______________

14. LINK A L1INK 9 LINK CKEY WORD O 9 WOOL9 m RL 5

1. Summer Flying Coveralls2. Nome'x (ovcrallIs3. Flame Resistant Coveralls4. Camouflage Coveralls

INSTRUCTIONS

L ORIGINATING ACTIVITY: Enter the name and address imposed by security classilfication, using standane statementsof the contra'-tor, subcontractor, grantee, Department of Do- such as:tons@ acti% t y or other organization (-rporste author) isun (1) "Qualified requesters may obtain copies of thisthe report. report from DDC."2.. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Enter the over- (2) "'Foreign announcement and dissemination of thisail security classification of the report. Indicate whetherreotb Disntaholt&"Restricted Data" is includod. Mairking is to be in accord- rpr yDCi o uo~4once with appropriate security regulatio~ns. (3) "U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of

this report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDC26. GROUP: Automatic downgrading is specified in DoD Di- users shall request throughrective 5200. 10 and Armed Forces Industrial Manual. Enterthe group number. Also, when applicable, show that optionalmarkings have been usod for Group 3 and Group 4 as author- (4) **U. S. military agenci -a may obtain copies of thisWied. report directly from DL ý.. Other qualified users3. REPORT TITLE. Enter the completv report title in all shall request throughcapital letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassified.If a meaningful title cannot be selected witho~at classifica-tion, show title classification in all capital* in parenthesis, (5) "All distribution of this report fa controlled. Qual.immediately following the title. tiled DDC users shall request through

4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: If appropriate, eniter the type of __________________

report. e~g.. interim, progress, summary, annual, or fina*l. If the report has been furnished to the Office of TechnicalGive the inclusive date* whena specific reporting pericd is Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public, indi-covered, cote this fact and enter the price, if knowo.S. A1YTHOR(SX~ Enter the name(s) of author(s) as shown on IL SUPPLEMNTARY NOTUZ& Use for additional explana-or in the report. Enter last name, first name, middfla initial, tory notes.If military, show rank and branch of service. The name ofthe principal adfhor is an absolute minimum requiremnent. 12. SPONUDR!NG MILITARY ACTIVITY: Etter the name of

the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (pay-S. REPORT DATt. Entr the date af the report as day, ing for) the research and developmeat. Include addressmonth, year. or month. yeab If more than one date appearson the roecrt, use date of publication. 13. ABSTRACT: Enter an abstract giving a brieC and factual

summary of the document indicative of the report, ever thougl'7&. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: The total page count it may also appear elsewhere in the body of the technical re-should follow normal pagination procedures, iLe.. enter the port. If additional spae is required, a continuation sheet shall'number of pages containing information. be attaciied.7b. NUMBER OF REFERENCE& Enter the total number of It is highly desirable that the abstrect of classified reportsreferences cited in the report. be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall end withIs. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter an indication of the military security classification of the in-the applicable number of the contract or grast under which formation in the peregfaph, represented as (TS). (s), (C). or (U).the report was written. There is no limitation on the length of the abstract. How-66, ac. & 6d. PROJECT NUMBER: Enter the appropriate ever, tk:e suggested leoct is from 150 to 225 words.military department identification, such as project nusmber. 4KYWRS a od.aetcnclymaigu smsubproject number, system numbers, task number, etc.14KYWRS ewoitaeecnalymnngutrs

or short phrases that characterize a report and may be used as9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S: Enter the offi- index entries for cataloging the report. Key worda must becial report number by which the document will be identified tolocted so that no security classification is required. Identi-mad controlled by the originating activity. This number 'Rust nttcat such as equaipmant moodel designetion, trade mean militarybe unique to this report. --ntert code name, geographic location, may be used as key

9b. OTHER REPORT NUMBERS): If the report has bee" worda but will be followed by an indication of technical con-assigned any other report numbers (either by the originator text. The assignment of links, raise, sncý weights in optional.or by the sponsor). also enter this numbert s).

10. AVAtLABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any lim-itations on further dissemination of the report, other than those.

DDj A""61473 (BACK) .