GrahamB

Hi Nick, Brilliant and many thanks for putting up the reflectance values. I haven't seen a copy of the 'Eyes for the Phoenix', but have Geoff Thomas' series in the old 'Aircraft Modelworld' magazines. I look forward to seeing a decent, comprehensive account of RAF colour schemes too. The Luftwaffe crowd have had it too good for many years. As you say, the 'Light Sea Green'/Light Mediterranean Blue combination looks suspicious at first but only if we are thinking of the AM 1938 card version of the former although the trials we are discussing took place early in the same year. That's why we should perhaps consider a version that is more towards the lighter end of the Sea Green scale, and then the ca. FS.34583 match doesn't seem so bad. I think this is where I'm going for the Swordfish K5952 scheme. All the colours on the model should be fairly pale anyway - in b/w photos FAA paints, at least until mid-late 1940, look paler to me than the later true Temperate Sea Scheme and if the Norway Skuas are anything to go by then 'standard' colours are not necessarily that - at least on those types not camouflaged at the factory - Fairey-built Swordfish, most Skuas etc. Good luck with your projects and I will follow with interest any posts. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Nick, thanks for clarifying this - we were at cross-purposes I think. Well, even now it does not help with getting a good match with K5952's Light Sea Green though. Yet more ambiguities! Why do you not post a complete table of your matches of British FAA/RAF colours and your views on what model paints would be OK, rather put them out in dribs and drabs as responses to other peoples' queries, such as mine? Clearly you have resources and archives unavailable to others and you could preempt a lot of colour queries - it would be of immense help - especially as I gather from your various posts, including this last, that many published FS. matches are crap (perhaps Ian Huntley's Methuens are better and can home in more accurately?). The reflectance values are also valuable - I have gleaned some from various articles by Paul Lucas, but with quite a few missing (including Dark Mediterranean Blue, ED Sea Grey, Dark Sea Grey) - it helps getting the tonal balance right when mixing paints. I use my local Resene paints colour cards (an extensive range, also with a colour-finder and RGB equivalents) as a translator from my Methuen book - good to have an actual paint chip in one's hand rather than a screen RGB equivalent or Methuen's rather pixilated printings (that can confuse scanners). The reflectance values you quote here (sourced from where, by the way?) for Light Sea Green and Light Mediterranean Blue are all but identical and might suggest that there is no tonal contrast in the shadow shading pattern on Swordfish K5952's lower wings (the scheme I want to replicate) - the pattern (not colours) is as depicted for the Shark on page 30 of the FAA Camouflage and Markings book - the photo on p.27 shows the darker tones on the upper wing's leading edge coinciding with the Dark Mediterranean Blue, as might be expected from reflectance values. Modelers should note that the colour profile of K5975 on p.33 is inaccurate from the cockpit forwards and the real thing actually follows the Shark diagram very well - there is possibly a weird flare-glare-defect effect on the photo on p.23 that is confusing but the diagnostic dark wedge (here supposedly 'Extra Dark Sea Green' over 'Dark Sea Green') on the forward fuselage overlapping the 'cabane' strut is there. Rod MCQ's comments about the sea greens clarifies the range of colours including the lightest (ca. FS.34583) match mentioned in my original post and might therefore take us back to the possibility that this* was the 'Light Sea Green' on K5952 rather than the ca. FS.34226 match so as to provide a contrast with Light Mediterranean Blue. Perhaps everything was finally adjusted (and accepted) to the darker end of the range by renaming a 'Dark Sea Green' (ca. FS.34226 match) as the new Light Sea Green (as per the AM card) with the darker ca. FS.34172 match becoming Dark Sea Green (as per the AM card); the palest, ca. FS.34583, falls by the wayside but may be picked up a few years later as basis for an undersurfaces colour (as per Michael Bowyer). All wild speculation of course. Onwards - it's only a model! Cheers, GrahamB * meaning that it could actually be anything between the ca. FS.34583 and ca. FS.34226 matches.

Hi Ross, Thanks. Yes, the image I've seen was a image kindly provided by another forum member of one of the cards that showed Light Sea Green (and Dark Sea Green, Dark Red Sand etc). A privilege and very useful - albeit with limitations of the photography-lighting etc. Nick - you might have been more helpful by pointing out the fact that it was an error in number not merely questioning the 'FS' element - you trying to be 'in the know' and clever too! But, you are right that it should read FS.34226 not FS.34266 and I've corrected the previous posts. I am not too proud to admit mistakes. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi John, thanks. I'll check my stock of model paints - might have one of those Humbrols. I still have a tin of Compucolor (a blast from the past!) RLM 24 that looks OK for a DMB too but I'll have another look. Recently I've seen an image of one of the original 1938 AM/RAF paint charts from the archives that indicates that Light Sea Green is only a touch lighter and less saturated than DSG - so will be the FS.34226 (CORRECTED 1/9/13) match provided by Ian Huntley, widely published elsewhere. IMHO, Humbrol 78 seems to be spot on for DSG - at least based on the FS.34172 match, so could be a starting point for LSG. Alternatively, WEM's nice Light Slate Grey could be tweaked with a little Humbrol 78 to get to Light Sea Green as well. Getting there. Cheers, GrahamB

It certainly does but, getting increasingly off topic from Light Sea Green, in default of not having the RAMB book I'm still not sure what Dark Mediterranean Blue looks like, as Ian Huntley's match 21(E-F)6 and his (?) FS.35056 are different in hue, not just saturation (ie allowing for addition of some dark grey). I'll cobble something up that 'looks about right' for my model. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi John, thanks. I no longer have this book but according to the David Klaus tome the Dark Mediterranean Blue chip in the RAFM book "is too bright and needs dark gray" (on what basis though?). He gives an FS.35050 match for DMB but approximately FS.35056 for the RAFM chip. I guess that DMB is centering on the former, as Ian Huntley's Metheun match for DMB is 21(E-F)6 - close to FS.35050 but not great. To me FS.35050 looks most like Methuen 20F8, darker and less greenish. Yet another FS. match, FS.35109 is given in Klaus - more like Light Mediterranean Blue What fun. Cheers, Graham

Yes, but hardly worth pointing this out, is it?

Hi, without wanting to stir a hornets' nest about FAA/RAF Tropical Sea Schemes I wondered if anyone had a view, or evidence about the real colour of Light Sea Green, as used in trials with Swordfish and others pre WW2? The big David Klaus book of FS. matches has the following: Light Sea Green FS.34226 CORRECTED 1/9/13 (not FS.34266) Sea Green FS.34583. These are originally from Ian Huntley articles (that I also have) but to me these appear inverted. The lighter of the two is 34583 but associated with Sea Green - this without any qualifier. Does this mean it was actually [Medium] Sea Green but there is an error going on? A colour chart ('Don's colours' or something) seems to show Light Sea Green as the darker colour too (34226).CORRECTED 1/9/13 This is very odd, especially as Light Sea Green was a possible precursor to Sky (on Blenheims) according to Michael Bowyer - but only if this was the FS.34583 duck-egg green match. Also, the original colour diagrams of the Shark in the FAA camouflage book shows a very pale green for the lighter (shadow-shaded) of the two sea greens. Originally probably Light Sea Green, the 'light' has been covered over with a patch with 'Dark' written on it. All very confusing. My motive is finding a good paint match to do my new Airfix 1/72 Swordfish in one of the two trial schemes. Dark Mediterranean Blue is also a pain as there seems to be no consensus as to what this was either. Any help much appreciated! Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, I've quite a few Ju52 references and can't recall any photo or text that conclusively shows external racks - even if they were for some other load and not bombs. There may be one case of mis-identification but I'll go and find it. There was a big programme in the late 1930s to convert the night-bomber g3es to transports by removing the internal (vertical) racks and installing a wide cargo door on the starboard side but some g3es seemed to have missed this process and there are images of internal bomb racks still inside Ju52s as late as the Crete operation - operating as quickly-drafted-in transports (probably without wide cargo doors). Cheers, GrahamB.

Hi Caerbannog, I completely agree, and said previously, that 'nachdunkelnden' (should have checked the full sentence) literally means 'became darker'. As you say, the darkening could be achieved several ways - it is the usual interpretation from photos that the colours faded/lightened/de-saturated with exposure that makes this difficult to understand. This may be a red herring though if it relates to effects immediately after application - which is what you are suggesting. Nice one. Cheers, Graham

Hi, I'm only implying that a paint could become 'duller' or de-saturated with time - without necessarily 'darkening', 'fading' or or 'matting'. We have the same confusion in English when we talk about a 'bright' colour when we might be referring to the intensity of the colour not its light tone. Similarly 'dull' can imply dark, drab - the opposite of bright. This is as far as I want to take this because it is about the language not the process in RLM 70 and 71's exposure to the elements - about which I'm not really confident to talk about. Perhaps, although these factors (fading, matting) also occurred, it was probably loss of the actual colour/hue that was most important to the Luftwaffe (and it is). I think we are all struggling with this because the evidence seems to point to fading and matting being so obvious. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, Michael is doing a great job and a lot of the problems stem from misreading of his comments, influenced by preconceptions. As for the proposition that RLM81 and 82 were introduced because of lack of stability in RLM 70 and 71, this should be taken to be a valid technological advance. Some of the discussion on 12 O'Clock High site surrounds the use of ''darkening' of the latter pair, since this seems wrong in the apparent evidence of photos of weathered aircraft in this scheme. I asked my wife (who speaks very good German/PhD in literature) and this was her response to my question as to whether 'Nachdunkeln' really meant 'darken' (with time) , or perhaps more appropriately, 'dulling [=de-saturation]' (with time) - which is my inference: It literally means a darkening after the event – so either could do. But since ‘darken’ can be transitive, and this is something being done by the paints themselves, then ‘dulling’ sounds a lot better. Hope this helps - more grist to the mill, anyway. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, I've only just caught up with this topic but I would like to add an opinion, or perhaps caution, to the discussion of Spanish Civil War colours, although this actually pertains to the Ju52. Although seemingly off-topic, this is relevant because they are used - as in this thread - as a comparator with a type under discussion - here the Bf109. My own view is that authors have consistently got it quite wrong in describing the colours on the banded/splinter aircraft as RLM 61/62/63. If one takes care to actually look at all of these one can see, over the original RLM 02 (or RLM 63 -or civil grey?) there can be four, five or even up to SIX colours that are not the same in either tone or pattern as those applied to genuine new build, or rather reconditioned, Ju52 g3e airframes in the Luftwaffe - and there is another story that I won't dare post on. The b/w tones on the Ju52s are more similar to those in use by the Italian Regia Aeronautica who were contemporaneously using up to six colours on types such as the Breda Ba64 and early versions of the Ba65. These would form three broad tonal groups - dark colours such as dark green and dark red-brown, mid-tone colours such a medium green, ochre, earth brown, and medium grey, and light tones such pale yellow-sand, ivory and the original civil/paramilitary German grey.The confusion arises because some of the colours were tonally closely similar in b/w photos, as any careful study of Breda aircraft will demonstrate. Further, I am sure that the fin of these Spanish Ju52s was black, not RLM 70, 61 or a dark red-brown/terra-cotta from Italian or Spanish stocks that would appear very dark in the case of use of orthochromatic film. Because this is so consistent I'm sure it was a unit or recognition feature. Another possibility for a source of non-German paint stocks (this also chimes with a post above by Steven Eisenman) that I have seen mooted (can't remember where) are Spanish railway colours/paints. Nothing is Gospel about paint schemes in this period or conflict unless confirmed by real evidence or documentation and I throw this in because it has always astounded me that no-one seems to take care to look at what little evidence is given and that so much is taken at face value or what the 'authorities' say. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Clinton no worries! It was just generalised exasperation - not specific. Let's hope Michael's terrier-like digging will bring out some more facts, or some wreck in Italy will be found to prove that it was put into practice either at the factory or during major overhauls. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, first off - and I don't want to get into the usual Luftwaffe-camouflage arguments that can readily deteriorate - please remember that the supposed 'blue' camouflage of the Swiss Ju88 is Merrick's interpretation, not the actual colours in the Swiss report (merely 'desert and water'). One has to be careful quoting from sources like that (the very pale meandering lines cannot possibly be RLM79 anyway, tonally). Secondly, I have been a follower/fan of Luftwaffe camouflage for over forty years and I think that Michael Ullmann's findings on RLM 83 are the most significant of this period. If you read my posts carefully you will see that I am not trying to refute this at all - far from it - it's great news. My first post was only to say that a 72/83 or 70/83 scheme would be difficult to distinguish from the 70/71 or 72/73 types in b/w photos, especially if it was overlain with Wellenmuster in RLM76. I don't know yet if Michael Ullmann has a colour sample for this blue but I would hazard that it would not be highly saturated and would be tonally lighter than either RLM72 or RLM70 in order preserve the overall pattern. Thirdly, I am not Graham Boak. Cheers, GrahamB Must dig out my long-stored 1/48 Ju88 and paint it up.

Hi, regarding Merrick's (2004: 89-90) interpretation of the Swiss Ju88 I strongly suspect that he may have inverted the meaning of 'desert and water' - the base upper colour could have just as easily been RLM79 (desert) and the scribble RLM76 (water). I would have interpreted this phrase this way - as did Luftwaffe im Focus; i.e. his opinion is not evidence. cheers, GrahamB

Hi Brad, this might be difficult as the scheme would not be recognisable from a 70/71 or 72/73 type. In Smith & Gallaspy (1977: 34) [Luftwaffe Camouflage & Markings Vol.3 - Kookaburra] they have eyewitness account of use of 'royal blue' (presumably RLM83) on Ju 88s of KG76 at least - those with some scribble. I would hazard that some of those many published photos of anti-shipping Ju88s in Mediterranean Theatre 1943 onwards are actually of this form - only some colour photo would prove it. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi Jack, no worries. Interesting to see that I did actually match that colour before but I may have 'improved' a little since then. As for the actual aircraft colour - you are right in that often there is no real evidence for this, or it has been lost. On the Aerodrome thread we were careful to point out that we were doing given Methuen matches not to original samples. Only Ray Rimell posted up his version of this system in Windsock as he had actual paint samples to hand. Another factor to bear in mind - an this is certainly evident from the late Dan San-Abbott's work - is that many Methuen values derive from the colour name only, for which Methuen gives single matches or a range. Then there are, for the Austro-Hungarian colours (I'm a big fan of A-H aircraft and camouflage) the bloody Rodney Gerrard fakes and the throw-away matches given by some interviewed pilots to O'Connor. As for model paints I think that Humbrol 186 is an excellent match for 6E7 - I will check as my writing on the plastic swatch (garden label) is worn. Cheers, Graham Mmmm - this is the problem with quoting a paint reference too: a tin (with blue base) of Humbrol 186 is almost indistinguishable from 6E7, but another (with blue ring near base) is somewhat different - richer, more rufous, closer to perhaps 6-7 E8. In either case they do give a very good idea of this A-H colour.

Hi Jack, A couple of years ago I posted up a long thread of Methuen matches on the Aerodrome site, with another member doing the 'artwork'. I was using my local extensive Resene paint range to obtain colour matches - translated to rgb for the screen. This was an attempt to give modelers a good feel for the Methuen matches given in various articles (Ian Huntley, Windsock etc). If you search under the Camouflage and markings section for 'Resene' you will see it.I can't recall if 6E7 was mentioned but that given in your first post is not bad. Our thread petered out because the matching was becoming more technical and moving away from fairly simple matches to using RESENE/RGB to develop a 'digital Methuen' (Methuen has 30 basic hues - Resene uses 360 on the colour wheel!). I've thought about resurrecting it but my skills with Paint etc to present tables and do the 'digital paint mixing' is not hot, although there are quite a few more tables to offer. If you ever want a Methuen match in a hurry let me know. I'll go away and try and see how my 6E7 would look. Cheers GrahamB PS. Had a look and I find that 6E7 is very well matched by a Resene colour called 'Jambalaya'. Its notation is BR41-046-056 which means it is a brown,with a luminence of 41 (0 = black, 100 = white), a saturation of 46%, of a hue 56 (on colour wheel). It has an RGB equivalent of 103 72 52. It is not perfect and a better match would be towards halfway between this colour and a colour 'Brown Bramble' - also a good match. This is BR38-044-54 and RGB 83 51 30. A final RGB would be about 93 61 41, but there is nothing like seeing actual paint chips that have, obviously, a more solid look. I would prefer the slightly more pastel Jambalya as a straight match for a model. You can see these colours on their website - and do searches by RGB to find nearest match. I did have a whole load of chip sets (kindly donated by Resene) but have given them all away (postage paid though). If anyone is interested they will supply free in Australia/NZ but I could do same for cost of postage if someone really, really needs to see a solid chip, rather than RGB that is hard to back-translate into paint colour. Alternatively, there could be local matches of Resene to ranges such as Dulux, Berger etc. Hope this helps.

Hi, the engine does look small and is clearly not the right size for the other main engine components. If I did another Vildebeest/Vincent I'd also go the Engine & Things or Aeroclub for a new engine. I think one or both make a Perseus, suitable for the Mk IV. The NZ Vincent is a great help for detailing and the other post on the Britmodeller site is a must-see for builders. Whether I get to see it for real is another matter. I was at Hood Aerodrome for the Armistice Day flying of the TVAL (PeterJackson connected) WW1 machines and could imagine that maybe sometime in the future they might have a go at building a Vincent from scratch! The kit's torpedo crutch is very fragile and I had to hack/modify it to make a more suitable cradle for the drop tank. What I'd really like to see are some good aftermarket 1/72 British bomb-carriers but I made mine based on various photos and some Harry Woodman articles in various references. If I remember, there were about 10 pieces in each bomb rack - and I made 8 but only used 4 - and 19 pieces in each light-weapons carrier (2 of). Good fun and and I almost convinced myself I was a decent modeller for it. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi All, just catching up with these replies as I'm half a world away. Thanks very much for the compliments, and especially to 'Old Man'. It is an honour, coming from you! I'm not going to get into an argument about the colour scheme as I just wanted to do a model in what looked to be a well-researched piece. I used Ian Huntley's Methuen matches to the various colours and note that the model was photographed in full NZ sun (not so frequent despite what Kiwi propaganda may say). I'm not totally convinced I've got the tonal balance right between the Dark Sea Green and Dark Earth on upper surfaces though. As for the model: well the main 'issues' are with the fit of the engine manifolds - I had to cut the rear manifold into about four or five segments, and the front needed some carefully bending - and the fit of the 'cabane' struts.I suspect the pattern maker didn't allow for dihedral on the upper wing so they sit too high/long in relation to the centre section. They need about 2mm removing but if anyone has a go at this kit I recommend very careful and patient dry-fitting of both engine and struts before committing to paint and glue. The engine is easily tarted up with push rods and wiring, the propellor boss replaced with an etched item (many WW1 sets cater for these) plus sprue nuts and bolts. The drop-tank came from a Kiwi-Resin Vincent kit and most of the decals are Modeldecal, with home-made laser-printed serials. A 1/48 model would be very welcome but I still fancy doing a Coastal Command 1939-1940 UK-based Vildebeest (Mk III or Mk IV) but have not found a photo of these in camouflage yet - could be Temperate Land Scheme shadow-shaded or not? with aluminium or black undersides? Thanks again guys. Cheers, GrahamB (an ex West Cornwall IPMS member and lapsed SIG Italia contributor, occasional minor contributor to 'Windsock', 'Aerodrome' site etc))

Hi, I thought I might venture into the site with posting pics of a finished model - an Azur Vildebeest as Vincent H-VL, K4712. 8 Squadron. This is depicted in Paul Lucas/Jon Freeman's 'Britain Alone'. It's in the speculative (?) LT 4 scheme but I have extrapolated this tropical paint job a little more with 'Iraq Sky' undersides (using enamel aluminium with spot of bright roundel blue [Precision Paints]- plus some grey for tinting/toning). Other painting done largely with Vallejo acrylics (Model Color mostly), with scratch-built bomb racks and light-weapons carriers, and functional rigging with mono-filament. Quite a bit of other detailing but a lovely kit anyway. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi, it is best not to be too dismissive of certain colour call-outs without being aware of more complex background to a particular subject, such as British high-altitude finishes. Ian Huntley, in SAM 7 no. 3, pp 130-33, described the evolution of the Medium Sea Grey/PRU Blue scheme, from the original Dark Green/Ocean Grey/Medium Sea Grey (Day Fighter Scheme), through Ocean Grey/Light Mediterranean Blue, a 'mixed grey' u/s (Ocean Grey plus Sky Grey), and finally the 'standard' High Altitude Scheme. PRU units were authorised to use whatever colours they thought most suitable for the task and it is not beyond reason to expect a specialised high-flying unit having similar latitude. Cheers, GrahamB

Hi 'Hwallen', nice information and link. Yes, on the Kiwi Resin Vincent, based on the surviving example here, there is the sliding panel and rails. I've copied these onto the Azur kit with 5-thou card and can see how the observer/gunner could also easily reach out and retrieve a message. So, I can attach the message arm hook to a small retainer next to it on the starboard side (since it is attached at other end to the starboard u/c strut through small fairing. many thanks! Cheers, GrahamB

Thanks John, A couple of the photos I hadn't seen but they do seem to confirm the single-arm form. I already had the painting as my computer 'background'! Operating the thing is a puzzle, as you say, especially the retrieval. Oh well, on with the painting today - the damned thing is already full of drilled holes waiting for rigging and other bits and pieces. I'm doing with the 'LT4' scheme but am going with another 'what-if' option by using 'Iraq Sky' (blue-tinted aluminium) for the undersurfaces. Cheers, Graham