There are lots of aircraft types that I have seen photos of painted in both camoflauge or overall silver/aluminum. Examples are many, I have seen many photos of P-47s, B-17s, B-52s and F-105s painted both ways. I was just curious as to what the reasoning is to painting a plane in all aluminum vs painting it in camoflauge?

I am no expert on this and I am not sure about painting a plane aluminium but often a plane is left in a bare metal state to increase speed/performance by reducing drag and weight. Whether the increase in speed compensates for the increase in visibility is often one of the deciding factors. For example, with the decrease in threats against allied aircraft towards the end of WW2 it was more advantageous to have better performance but during earlier periods it was better to have low visibility.

I am sure that's only part of the answer though.

Cheers
Wiz

Camouflage is only useful, if it works. At times, consideration had to be made, about where they are most vulnerable, and that's on the ground, or at comparitively low level. During the war, when the allies had total air superiority, over their own territory, camouflage became redundant. The winter, of 1944, was particularly harsh, and Bud Anderson, for one, complained that his green Mustang, over snow, stuck out like a sore thumb; over night, his crew stripped it back to bare metal. Now, with aircraft housed in hardened shelters, ground camouflage is redundant, hence the (high altitude) grey schemes beloved of modellers.
Edgar

Paint has two purposes. First it can help hide the aircraft against the ground or in the air. It also serves to protect against corrosion which is a big problem with aircraft maintenance. A bare aircraft (all start life bare like babies do) weighs less thus increasing useful load and overall performance. Early in WWII aircraft were painted to protect them from marauding bombers and fighters. Once air superiority was achieved hiding them was no longer an issue. Also painting takes more production time. When you can save several steps, you can deliver the aircraft to the end users quicker thus winning the war faster.

A shiny NMF only stayed that way with a lot of effort on the part of the ground crew. Dirt and oxidation weathered aircraft quickly. Salt air worsened the effects. So a new aircraft wasn't new looking for long, unless the ground crew pampered it by washing and polishing it regularly.

In modern times, the same applied, but mostly this task was reserved for aircraft with special mission needs or prestige purposes. A clean fighter has less resistance thus goes faster. A training aircraft was kept clean by trainees (ground crew usually) . Aircraft assigned to unit commanders or used for public demonstration/relations were kept spotless. Image thing again.

Large aircraft like airliners that have bare metal as part of their scheme, tend to have a clear coat applied to prevent oxidation. It costs money to wash an aircraft and they want to keep up their professional appearance to attract customers.

WWII silver airplanes were usually not painted silver. They were NMF--Natural Metal Finish, i.e, unpainted aluminum. The P-51's wings were painted in aluminum laquere, but the fuselage was not.

Trivia: IIRC, the B-52's SEA greens and tan camo paint weighed 800 pounds!

F-105 in the early-mid 60s had a problem with moisture seeping into the electronics bays and the entire fleet was given an overall coat of aluminum that help attenute the problem ( I recall that was part of Project Look-alike. )

RAF's Spitfires were given a gloss ( or semi-gloss ) coat after Battle of Britain and that, with several other tinkerings, added several MPH to the speed.