Jump to content

Mitsubishi A6M2a Zero greys


Smudge

Recommended Posts

Is anyone familiar with the two 'greys' colour scheme used on the early Zero's?

 

I am trying to get a few colours together to put in an order for some Colourcoats enamels, but I am not quite sure which ones would be appropriate for this scheme.

 

I contacted Sovereign Hobbies, but between us we weren't quite able to pin them down. Here's a link to that discussion.

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235018692-mitsubishi-a6m2a-zero-greys/

 

Essentially I am looking for a 'Grey Green' and 'Mitsubishi Green' and the best Colourcoats match (if available).

 

Cheers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this is approaching the subject from the wrong direction.  I've seen arguments about this scheme before, and the explanation given was that the Japanese had a large canvas covering that protected the forward fuselage and inner wings.  Memory suggest that this has been seen in photo(s).   IIRC, it was even clear that on the photograph of the individual aircraft the dividing line between the fresher, protected, paint and the paler weathered variety did not exactly follow the fuselage transport joint, thus ruling out a "hybrid" made from two separate airframes.  (I think it ran slightly aft, but can't confirm that.)  You will need to plough through several years of the archives of j-aircraft.org to find the discussion.   To back this argument, it is well known how the fresh finish changed to a paler dove grey in service, leading to years of light grey or even white models of Zeros.

 

The term "Mitsubishi Green" is normally used to describe the darker green paint added to the uppersurfaces later in the war.  I think that you need a light green-grey (I'll leave it to others to say exactly which, but Jamie will no doubt tell you) for the forward and a light grey for the back.  The precise difference between the two presumably changed with time as weathering proceeded, so you aren't looking for one precise documented colour anyway.

Edited by Graham Boak
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for those helpful replies, chaps.

 

I did have a bit of a search on the Aviation of Japan site, but couldn't find anything (for some reason unknown). I think I am a little wiser now, cheers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got the wild bull by the tail on this one, but if you want to get the caramel lacquer protective coat effect that was found on parts of Zero's shot down at Pearl then a 50/50 mix of MM SAC bomber tan (or similar color, maybe a panzer yellow/green) and white (if you are using enamels) should get you there. I suggest j.aircraft.com. Nick Millman was of incalculable help for me on this, but don't wrack your brain on this one whilst trying to achieve the perfect color, it is a rabbit hole you may never get out of. Personally, after numerous sessions of creating a suitable color I am finally satisfied with my results. Good luck with this one mate, you will need it!

Cheers

Edited by Spitfire addict
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason Hasegawa in their instructions describe Mr Color 35/H61 as "Mitsubishi Green" when it is actually a light blue grey. The paint is called 'IJN Gray (Mitsubishi)' and is close to FS 36373 in hue. 

 

The two-tone demarcation is sharper (hard) above the fuselage hinomaru, diffused (soft) below it around the curve of the wing root and diffused on the inboard surfaces of the upper wings, but it varied slightly from aircraft to aircraft. It is more or less apparent depending on which photos are studied - some show increased contrast, others much less.

 

To replicate the effect you could use Colourcoats ACJ16 for the darker part and add a little white or light grey to that for the lighter part. FWIW I suggest that you keep the difference between the two fairly subtle rather than going for completely different colour paints. There is a paint degradation schematic for the Zero at my blog which might help you with the colours (posted 22 Dec 2011). 

 

Nick

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nick,

Thanks for stopping by. That is most helpful and clears that up. Interesting that you note the diffused demarcation between tones. This would help the canvas cover theory, as I was doubtful if all the lines had been quite sharp (not that I'm claiming to have any knowledge about it). Also interesting that you and Graham agree that just some mixing of paint should achieve the desired result, which is great as I can allow myself some artistic licence.

 

Thanks for the replies, chaps.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One additional point to perhaps mention is the frequent use of the term "grey-green" to describe the paint. That is a bit misleading and can give the impression of a cool, RAF Sky-like colour. Strictly speaking the paint was a yellow-grey like RLM 02, almost exactly replicated by RAL 7034 Gelbgrau. Both the original paint and 7034 are Munsell Yellows. The slight olive or greenish hue is a fugitive undertone. It also had lustre, like a satin paint. As the paint surface chalked with exposure it became a lighter, duller or flatter dove-grey.       

 

RAL 7034

 

Hex # 908A70

 

Compare to RAF Hemp - BS 381C # 389 Camouflage Beige - here, and bear in mind the effect of chalking/fading/scale:-

 

BS 381C # 389

 

Nick

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Peter Roberts said:

 

Some of the best information and explanation for this elusive colour I have read.

 

Thank you for the post, and thank you Nick for the info.

 

PR

 

And thank you for the courtesy of acknowledging it and thanking me. 

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I don't imagine those "grey Zeros" being anywhere near as dark as those color examples look on my computer.  This is not in any way saying that I doubt Nick, just that I've been very conditioned by years of other renditions (model box art, crappy old profiles, perhaps the foibles of my own "mental image").  I do find these color discussions fascinating!

 

One question, Nick: could you elaborate a bit on "fugitive undertone"?

 

bob

 

p.s. I don't remember ever even running into the "two greys" aspect before, but I also tend to think of these particular aircraft as "shiny and new".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23 March 2017 at 3:11 PM, gingerbob said:

Funny, I don't imagine those "grey Zeros" being anywhere near as dark as those color examples look on my computer.  This is not in any way saying that I doubt Nick, just that I've been very conditioned by years of other renditions (model box art, crappy old profiles, perhaps the foibles of my own "mental image").  I do find these color discussions fascinating!

 

One question, Nick: could you elaborate a bit on "fugitive undertone"?

 

bob

 

p.s. I don't remember ever even running into the "two greys" aspect before, but I also tend to think of these particular aircraft as "shiny and new".

 

The original paint colour has about the same reflectivity as RAF Middle Stone or Medium Sea Grey. It usually appears mid-toned in good quality photos of aircraft in service but can photograph lighter in a similar way to many light blues and greys. The paint surface chalked with exposure and wreckage literally bleached which has conditioned perception. Small 2D swatches of colour will often appear darker to the eye than the same colour applied to larger 3D objects. That is related to field-size metameric failure which occurs because the relative proportions of the three cone types in the retina vary from the centre of the visual field to the periphery, so that colours viewed as very small, centrally fixated areas may appear different when presented as large colour areas. Comparing a small chip to a real object at a distance it can be perceived as too dark but when the same chip is placed on the actual paint surface it turns out to be identical (that is often touted as due to atmospheric or aerial perspective but is a different issue, more about size than distance).  The appearance of the colour is also subject to illumination as the online, rendered swatches have "fixed" illuminant whereas the real paint appeared under many different and changing forms of illumination.  A good "live" example of all this is the RAF Hemp colour.

 

Undertone is described in different ways. A common understanding is that the predominant colour in a multi-colour mix will present an undertone to the resultant masstone but it is really governed more by the chromatic strength of the constituent pigments rather than just their ratio. On a Zero, for example, the predominant pigment is white but the undertone is not white. The fugitive element comes in when the undertone is affected both by individual perception (observer metameric failure - where the relative importance of different wavelengths varies for each observer's colour perception, for example I might see predominant brown where you might see predominant green) and by illuminant. For the Zero paint some see an olive or green undertone more prominently, whilst others see more brown or yellow, and that can vary as the illuminant changes - hence fugitive, it is difficult to pin down. The Zero paint has black and yellow ochre pigments which together create an undertone like an olive drab with the same green/brown perception complexities influencing the appearance of the masstone colour which of itself is subtle.

 

I might add here for those contemplating the use of RAF Hemp on a Zero model as a simple solution that suitability also depends on how close the Hemp hobby paint is to the original BS381 colour. 

 

Nick

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Nick!  When I looked at the sample (link) I did have a "feel" of green, but not enough so that I would say, "Oh, yes, that certainly leans toward green..." - in my perception, of course.  In some older discussion (several years) I talked about discovering that one eye "saw" colors differently than the other, with- for example- yellow being a bit more vibrant when looking with one eye, compared to the other.  Good demonstration that what we see isn't "what is"!

 

bob

 

p.s. The bit about center vs. periphery is interesting- I'd never thought about structural/perceptual differences before, but it seems logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this photo helps or muddles the topic, but I just found it and offer it for your consideration- scroll down to see the A6M photo supposedly taken on the Akagi. It appears to show two distinct colors and the rearmost demarcation seems to be aligned with the transport joint. I seem to recall some discussion regarding this in an article by James Lansdale some years back. Being pretty  much a neophyte when it comes to IJA/IJN colors and markings, and not even being knee-high to Nick Millman, my thoughts are that a tarp or cover would have to be in place for quite a period of time to cause surrounding unprotected paint to fade that much compared to the surfaces covered. Also, I would think the carrier-based A6M's would be below deck a great portion of time, so would not be subject to fading like a land-based example; has anybody got any evidence of the covers being attached to  carrier-based A6M's, as the one in the photo certainly shows what looks like two different greys.

 

As some of you say on this forum, I'm pulling up a chair and enjoying this discussion!

Mike

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naval aircraft spend most of their time at sea on the flight deck. The hangar deck is primarily for repair and the stowage of ready aircraft when space isn't available in the flight deck. 

 

A CV is vulnerable when operating the elevators, as typically when the elevator is not fully up, a portion of the flight deck is not usable for flight operations. Since straight decks of WWII usually meant all aircraft aft for launch, forward for recovery, any action that could take the deck out of use was avoided. Exceptions existed such as when most of the strike is airborne, bringing up the remainder, or next strike; moving the last few recovering aircraft to the hangar due to space; it provided time to fix the elevator if a problem arose, without affecting the immediate tactical situation and with acceptable loss if a plane had to ditch. 

 

If the A6M in the photo were operationally ready it was likely on the flight deck at all times, or in the air. That way it could be quickly launched if needed. Like today, the fuel tanks were kept full unless under repair to ensure no moisture condensed in the tanks, causing engine problems later. "Ready" CAP was also always armed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Greenshirt said:

Naval aircraft spend most of their time at sea on the flight deck.

 

Not true in RN practice (and I wonder about it elsewhere at this time - the number of aircraft available would fill the deck of a straight-through carrier.)  Only aircraft ready for operations would be on the flight deck.  There are several photos of carriers in Operation Pedestal which show only a handful of fighters (a section of four) actually on the deck, from one of the (up to) three active fighter squadrons on the carrier.  The two strike squadrons were stored below, not expecting to be in any immediate use.  There simply was no room on the deck for all aircraft carried.

 

Prewar policy was that all aircraft, even the fighters, would be stored below decks to allow the guns freeplay to defend the fleet from air attack.  If it was still in play at the start of the war, it didn't last long.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough, Graham. My personal experience is with modern (Cold War) USN operations; in studying how operations matured from the biplane era, both IJN and USN were leading theory and to a degree practice in managing large CV air wings for large strikes. CV design followed theory of use, with US CV having generally larger decks and hangar areas and able to embark and operate ~90 aircraft by mid war. The IJN seemed to (to me) following suit with similar air wing structures, and by 1941 was actually a bit more efficient at what I would call a combat launch and recovery; being able to launch a strike package across a battle group in 10 minutes whereas the USN struggled to do the same in 30. Of course that could be due to their experience versus the USN. 

 

USN, and I thought IJN as well, had removed the bigger guns (greater than 5") before 1941. The remaining guns were for AA and I do agree flight ops during gun use of any size would be dangerous. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...