RLM/Revell paint conversion chart

[Sturmovik]

Didn't think this topic would get comments and views after 3 years of being up in the forum. I hope it was found helpful by those who use Revell paints.

[Jochen Barett]

On 02/07/2021 at 23:39, Sturmovik said:

Didn't think this topic would get comments and views after 3 years of being up in the forum. I hope it was found helpful by those who use Revell paints.

It IS helpful - to a certain degree 😉

 

RLM 65 (Light Blue) "=" Revell Matt 49 (Light Blue) (sorry, got confused! This is wrong. Revell 49 is their new RLM 65)

RLM 65 = Revell 55 (given here http://www.rlm.at/download/rlmpdf.pdf and in other places) for example is a match made in those days when "all" Revell paints were done to RAL standards, and there was (still is) no RAL color matching RLM 65 pale light blue - so Revell chose the "closest" color: A very pale green RAL 6027 (instead of giving a mix of some blue, white, and black or "whatever").

 

Later Revell provided "special" paints for RLM and others (skin, Italian Red, RAF Sky, ...). Many many years ago the very first Revell paints were "equal" to Humbrol paints (but with different numbers).

 

Some people are more "discriminating" when it comes to colors than other people. Some simply rely on conversion tables.

 

At a place I've been visiting for some years the local hardware store would sell you "high quality white" paint for your house (window frames, doors etc). One year it was RAL 9010, the next year they sold RAL 9001 and two years ago it was RAL 9016 and I'm waiting for 9003 or 1013 this year. To the guy in the store "This is white according to the German RAL system" and I am tempted to "explain" the matter to him by hitting him with my RAL fan deck (but my translator for the language spoken there keeps me from doing so, and it took some time to explain the problem to her in the first place). I wonder if I can legally take that RAL fan deck onto an airplane these days.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Jochen Barett
RLM 65 (Light Blue) "=" Revell Matt 49 (Light Blue) (sorry, got confused! This is wrong. Revell 49 is their new RLM 65)

[Sturmovik]

@Jochen Barett I wasn't trying to be picky with the RAL or FS that other modellers use, I was trying to help those who use Revell Aqua colours, not people who use other brands.

[Jochen Barett]

Like fishplanebeer said "For those of us (am I the only one?) who just require a paint that approximates very closely to that required and get lost in all the extended discussions and machinations about the specifics of whether a paint is 95% or 97% accurate then I think this chart is incredibly helpful."

 

Steben gave a (Mark I Eyeball) cross reference from the HIKOKI RLM chart to RAL

Connecting and crosschecking the RAL codes to Revell's RAL-claims leads to the same result in several cases.

 

But in some instances there is a gap (i.e. RLM 04 according to HIKOKI (and the Mark I Eyeball) RAL 1004, Revell 15 according to Revell RAL 1017) and in another case HIKOKI comes close to RAL 6014 (Gelboliv, standard Bundeswehr "NATO Oliv") for RLM 81, but Revell calls #46 "NATO Olive" and claims it is RAL 7013 in the same moment).

 

So, "For those of us who just require a paint that approximates very closely to that required and not get lost in all the extended discussions and machinations about the specifics of whether a paint is 95% or 97% accurate this chart is incredibly helpful." and for those of us who believe in "98% is not good enough" there is room for debate.

[Steben]

8 hours ago, Jochen Barett said:

Like fishplanebeer said "For those of us (am I the only one?) who just require a paint that approximates very closely to that required and get lost in all the extended discussions and machinations about the specifics of whether a paint is 95% or 97% accurate then I think this chart is incredibly helpful."

 

Steben gave a (Mark I Eyeball) cross reference from the HIKOKI RLM chart to RAL

Connecting and crosschecking the RAL codes to Revell's RAL-claims leads to the same result in several cases.

 

But in some instances there is a gap (i.e. RLM 04 according to HIKOKI (and the Mark I Eyeball) RAL 1004, Revell 15 according to Revell RAL 1017) and in another case HIKOKI comes close to RAL 6014 (Gelboliv, standard Bundeswehr "NATO Oliv") for RLM 81, but Revell calls #46 "NATO Olive" and claims it is RAL 7013 in the same moment).

 

So, "For those of us who just require a paint that approximates very closely to that required and not get lost in all the extended discussions and machinations about the specifics of whether a paint is 95% or 97% accurate this chart is incredibly helpful." and for those of us who believe in "98% is not good enough" there is room for debate.

Hi Jochen. I did add comments. The hikoki rlm81 is lighter than ral6014, yet ral7013 is too far. Of course the Merrick Kiroff ones are slightly different.

[Jochen Barett]

2 hours ago, Steben said:

Hi Jochen. I did add comments. The hikoki rlm81 is lighter than ral6014, yet ral7013 is too far. Of course the Merrick Kiroff ones are slightly different.

Acknowledged 😉 Part of these color threads is (besides references and miracles) about tolerances and tolerance. When the reference(s) is (/are) named and the applicable tolerances are stated there should be enough tolerance in us. After all the built models are usually judged by eyeballs and not by scientific instruments. And some models are built for pleasure (I have been told), not to be shwon in court as a piece of scientific evidence. Some modellers and the people looking at the built models will be fine with Revell 49 being used for RLM 65 and 78, some may not.

 

Still it just hurts so much to explain people selling paint the fundamentals of their job (you can not paint half a door in RAL 9010 and when the tin is empty use RAL 9001 on the other half - at least not in a civilized country) - and sometimes it hurts to take a closer look at "conversion tables" (esp. those supplied by paint manufacturers, i.e. the manufacturers Humbrol and Revell (nope, Humbrol 19 is not RAL 3000 but Revell 31 is a pretty good match for RAL 3000 and that is easily detectable with a human eye)). For some small stenciling "any red" may be good enough.

 

Excuse me, I'm getting carried away again.

 

 

[Steben]

8 minutes ago, Jochen Barett said:

Acknowledged 😉 Part of these color threads is (besides references and miracles) about tolerances and tolerance. When the reference(s) is (/are) named and the applicable tolerances are stated there should be enough tolerance in us. After all the built models are usually judged by eyeballs and not by scientific instruments. And some models are built for pleasure (I have been told), not to be shwon in court as a piece of scientific evidence. Some modellers and the people looking at the built models will be fine with Revell 49 being used for RLM 65 and 78, some may not.

 

Still it just hurts so much to explain people selling paint the fundamentals of their job (you can not paint half a door in RAL 9010 and when the tin is empty use RAL 9001 on the other half - at least not in a civilized country) - and sometimes it hurts to take a closer look at "conversion tables" (esp. those supplied by paint manufacturers, i.e. the manufacturers Humbrol and Revell (nope, Humbrol 19 is not RAL 3000 but Revell 31 is a pretty good match for RAL 3000 and that is easily detectable with a human eye)). For some small stenciling "any red" may be good enough.

 

Excuse me, I'm getting carried away again.

 

 

Hah well... paint sellers (especially DIY stores) Just add to a vast list. 😄

Edited July 4, 2021 by Steben

[fishplanebeer]

Just to update the original chart in this thread I've just discovered that Revell 42 is an excellent eye ball match to RLM72. My 'analysis' is based upon comparison with the Xtracolor RLM72 and they are both almost identical to the naked eye. So as Colourcoats have been out of stock for ages I'll be using this for my Do217E shortly.

 

By the way Humbrol 66 is also pretty close as well if you don't like Revell paints although Humbrol also do 243 which is supposed to be their actual RLM72 as well.

 

Regards

Colin.

[TonyOD]

On 7/2/2021 at 10:39 PM, Sturmovik said:

Didn't think this topic would get comments and views after 3 years of being up in the forum. I hope it was found helpful by those who use Revell paints.

 

I'm all over this like a cheap suit. Having stashed up on Revell Luftwaffe kits, a cut-out-and-keep guide to their RLMs is just what I need (particularly given my miserable experience with Humbrol RLM 70 and 71 😁). 

[Graham Boak]

On 7/12/2021 at 4:26 PM, fishplanebeer said:

By the way Humbrol 66 is also pretty close as well if you don't like Revell paints although Humbrol also do 243 which is supposed to be their actual RLM72 as well.

 

Isn't H66 an olive green, as evidenced by it being matched to US Dark Olive Drab, whereas RLM 72 is described as bluish-green?  It was, after all, a maritime colour.

[fishplanebeer]

The H66 is an olive green so the Humbtol 243 is a better match but at the time I was doing my Dornier the latter along with the Colourcoats RLM72 was out of stock so I used what I thought was the best alternative and it seemed to work out OK.

 

That said I'm not a stickler for absolute accuracy when it comes to paints, even though I know many are, so I accept that my finish is not completely accurate but it did the job and looks pretty good to me as it has the discernable contrast between the two dark camo colours.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Graham Boak]

Obviously you could use any colour you like for your own models, particularly when others are unavailable (though how about trying Xtracolour or Phoenix Precision?)  but in my opinion telling people that X is "pretty close" to Y when they are in different same spectral region is another matter.  For just a dark contrast H67 would have done as well. or any of the RLM 66 variants offered.

[fishplanebeer]

I just happened to have H66 in my paint stash and I'm just expressing my honest opinion, which may or may not be helpful, and not seeking to mislead others as I'm sure they will make their own decisions on appropriate colours to use as I did. I've no idea what a spectral region is and have lived this long without knowing so I'm quite happy to use my own judgement and share my experiences as a non-expert.

 

Regards

Colin.