Rolls-Royce

If you mean by a serial number list or some such, no. At least, not in Morgan and Shacklady.

The Most Dangerous Enemy is by Stephen Bungay, and I agree, it is an excellent book.

That's a pretty rough-looking field repair on the battle damage on N3277. Don't think I'd have wanted to be the first one to fly her after that patch was applied!

Sensors and color systems are both formally spec'ed with particular "observer angles", which is generally why you see them mentioned, along with illuminant used, to make comparisons more accurate.

Amen!

Colin, my pursuit of accurate colors really dates from when the Monogram Guide to Painting German Aircraft came out in 1980. Prior to that, I pretty much followed the color guides in the kit instructions, most of which had a color description only, and using Testor's or Pactra paints, which were widely available at the time. I also used things like the Humbrol and Pactra "authentics" when I could get them. It wasn't long before I discovered that these really didn't match the swatches in the Monogram Guide, and the hunt began. So it's a long-time occupation for me.

@Steben Forum member Nobby Clarke bought a Nix Pro 2 back in April. His readings of Dark Earth in his copy of the RAF Museum book were at 0.41 dE of those done with my considerably more expensive XRite I1 Pro 2 spectrophotometer on the same color in my copy of the RAF Museum book. In sRGB terms, that's 1 digit difference (in the same direction) for each of the three colors Red, Green, and Blue. Virtually identical, with mine the (slightly) lighter one in a side by side comparison on my calibrated monitor. With that as well as Jamie's use of the device, it looks like a worthwhile buy to me.

I'd think 2 or 3 coats of a good surfacing primer over the ribs might give enough subtle relief...

The Hikoki chart is the updated version of the chart that was included in the Ullmann book, with some changes to certain colors vs the original (69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83). My copy of Ullmann came with the original chart and an enclosed form/coupon for the updated one which also listed the changes between the two. As the book is currently OOP, I figured the newer chart was, too, and never sent in the coupon. When I discovered the availability of the Hikoki chart some time ago, I ordered one.

Here's a thread on HS: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/eduard-will-release-a-spitfire-vc-that-s-right-a-f-t524317.html

I think it would depend on the format in which the scanned image is stored and/or transmitted. And the swatches are glossy, which might cause interference patterns in the image. But usually such patterns aren't regularly spaced dots as these are, so it may indeed be a form of watermark. There is a raised edge on each color swatch on the actual charts, so they aren't printed directly onto the page. And under 100X magnification, the only swatch that exhibited any visible dot or grain structure was RLM 01 Silber, which is to be expected. This leads me to believe that the swatches are paint. Whether they are glued on or sprayed directly, I couldn't say for sure.

I have that chart, Jack (along with the original version that was in my copy of the book). It doesn't appear to be printed and definitely doesn't have moire patterns on it. The moire could also be a result of the scanning process.

No worries, Steben. It's all good.

You may not be, but rest assured that Jamie is. It's how he obtains those colors that create "the desired overall effect".

Don't get too locked in on that. I only added the description as it's on the label, and some of our folks may more easily remember it than the Vallejo stock number. The important things are the 70.xxx number and the dE...

I have 70.894 on hand, and measured it some time ago against the RAFM book chip. It's very close, at 1.4 dE. Another close contender in the Vallejo line is 70.892 Yellow Olive (RAL 6008 - FS34096) at 1.64 dE. A choice between these two would come down to a modeler's personal preferences and visual acuity, as differences are present but very slight.

Troy, as you say, the RAL 6003 is similar to, but lighter than, RAF Dark Green. My spectro shows a dE of 6.51 between the two, with the RAFM Dark Green at an L*a*b* of 34.1/-3.26/7.96 and RAL 6003 at 34.1/-6.00/13.6. I happen to have Merrick and Kiroff at hand, and their RLM 70 from Volume One and RAL7022 measure out at dE 4.13, which is actually in the same range as a number of other RLM model paint equivalents I've measured so far (mostly claimed RLM 81 equivalents, last year). My RLM70 chip has an L*a*b* value of 26.9/ -2.86/0.61, while RAL 7022 reads at 28.3/-0.00/3.60. I may have a bottle of 70.897. Let me take a look. If I do, I'll report back and do a reading as soon as I've had time to prepare a test swatch...

Troy, if your RAL K7 Classic deck is like mine, the swatches are glossy, which could complicate comparisons a bit.

Yes. It goes to illustrate that what should be a straightforward 1:1 transfer of sRGB code from your computer to mine is adversely impacted by the trip.

You're right. I really need to read more closely instead of going by the subject of the thread! Even so, in your illustration Dark Earth gives me 120/90/63 so something is different.

Weird. The RGB Color Picker tool (www.daanav.com) I use reads your 114/93/64 as 73/70/55 regardless of where it is placed in that color fill area. Something is obviously being lost in translation.

Possibly a trademark or copyright issue involved there somewhere. Oh, yes, before someone mentions it, the Russian aircraft manufacturer is "MiG"...

Thanks for the correction. I knew there was a "1" in the designation somewhere!

I have seen that put forward as a possible cause before.

Period photos show A6M1 Zeros in China in an apparent slightly contrasting two-tone finish, with the dividing line vertical at the transport joint behind the cockpit. I believe this is still not understood.