Rolls-Royce

Note that I wasn't making a value judgement and did not attempt to say which is correct and which wasn't, merely that they are different. My numbers are in sRGB, while yours are in Adobe RGB. They use different gamuts, and possibly different illuminants. And I didn't use an eyedropper tool, which has to involve some form of averaging or other routines to deal with the dithering used when displaying image files. For my own purposes, I use Munsell reference, which some sources (Nicholas Millman, for instance) do include in their color descriptions. Again, these (among others) can be generated by the third-party software I use with my spectro for reading color swatches. I include sRGB here because that is the colorspace the majority of computer video output is set up for out of the box, and most people here can at least make a relative assessment for themselves using it.

The enamel is an old bottle, for sure. The acrylic is much newer and IIRC was purchased at our local Hobby Lobby or Michael's some time ago.

So to summarize, they were done with an eyedropper color sampling program from digital images of the RAFM color charts that you captured, not from direct readings of the swatches with a spectrophotometer or other color sampling device? Nobby and I are doing direct readings from the swatches, which helps explain some of the differences between your numbers and ours. He and I have one or two digit differences between our numbers, but the differences with yours are greater. For instance, you show Dark Earth at 109 89 70 while my reading for the same color was 117 95 70. There are differences in how these were arrived at as well as possible minor differences between the swatches each of us is using. Mine is calculated by third-party measurement software from the raw numbers reported by my spectrophotometer, and factors in the corrections made by my computer's .icc monitor calibration file to produce the closest approximation to the actual swatch on my monitor.

I'm in the camp of @alt-92, wanting the paints I use to be as accurate as possible, and making my own decisions about lightening or darkening them. The past couple of decades, I've been using a Pactra product named "Weathering", first in enamel and now in acrylic. It's a very thin light gray with a hint of tan, and essentially replicates the effect of a light coat of dust. After the final coat of clear dries, I spray a uniform dusting coat of "Weathering" over the entire model. This slightly tones down the colors and markings as well, tying them together much as a wash does. I'd like to give Jamie some of my money, but sadly, his enamels are scarce on the West side of the Pond, with only one stocking vendor that I'm aware of (who is usually "out of stock" on the most-used colors).

I was curious about that myself, Nobby...

I have their 1/48 Spitfire Mk IIa overtrees sitting in my stash right now. The instructions are downloadable from their website, and I already have both of Fundekals' Spitfire sheets. This will go to produce a late Mk I flown by George Unwin on 15 September 1940. Eduard provides only the handpump for the gear in their Mk I kits, not the cockpit control for the engine-driven hydraulic setup, which the aircraft I'm modeling almost certainly had.

Within reason, of course. Hoses especially would have been variable based on their material and whether or not a protective covering had been installed. Tubing is a bit different. The material used depends on the pressure the lines hold. Most of the lines I saw during my career working on and around aircraft were stainless steel, not only for strength but for heat and corrosion resistance.

I agree with Graham. The only standardization would likely have been those lines and tubes that were delivered as part of the powerplant from R-R, and if some engines were made by subcontractors, even this would have been questionable. The choice of those lines and hoses leading from the airframe would probably have been at the discretion of the aircraft manufacturer as long as they met Rolls-Royce requirements for flow rates and resistance to pressure and environmental conditions.

I personally would assume a coaming was present unless I had photos of the specific aircraft I was modeling showing no coaming.

No worries. It's all good!

See here:

Actually, I never mentioned him in this thread at all, only in another when someone asked when the "not a bomb" label was first applied to German drop tanks...

It's just my opinion, but color matching to the surface of a 75-80 year old relic is somewhat fraught with uncertainty. One never quite knows how much weathering and color shifting has taken place over the decades.

You may want to PM Jerry Crandall. He's the most knowledgeable guy on this kind of stuff that I can think of offhand.

In an email discussion I had with him about Zero colors months ago, he mentioned that AK did not seem to follow the reference samples he provided them, so, yep, he contributed to them for Japanese colors as well.

Deleted.

I think you'd be good with either flat aluminum or a lighter medium gray.

The insides of jet intakes need to be smooth for airflow reasons, and exterior camouflage paint probably isn't quite smooth enough. Some 262s were photographed with unpainted intake shrouds in service, and the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum - which I happen to trust as they did a ground-up full disassembly and restoration of the aircraft and both its engines - has its Schwalbe's intake ducts in what appears to be dull bare aluminum. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/messerschmitt-me-262-a-1a-schwalbe-swallow/nasm_A19600328000

We should remember that this was their very first high-performance aircraft with retractable gear. The previous Model 224 fighter prototype had a fixed undercarriage. The Supermarine Walrus flying boat of the same time period had retractable wheels and a hand pump for the gear. In fact, the pump lever in the Spitfire is the one from the Walrus, bent to fit in the Spitfire's cockpit. All their prior designs had been flying boats and floatplanes.

A diagram in Morgan and Shacklady (pg 60) shows the master contactor for the TR9 radio in roughly the same starboard rear window area. P9450 was equipped with the TR9D as shown by the triangular piece on the radio mast. Perhaps what we're seeing is that contactor relocated slightly due to the change in the hydraulic system?

Methinks it was more than a satin sheen. Photos of the Zero that crashed at Fort Kamehameha during the attack show a distinct gloss to the camouflage paint (http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Zero/Hirano's-Zero-AVIATION-HISTORY-Jan-2009.pdf). The same was seen on photos of a Zero recovered in China and photographed in a hangar. See page 3 of Nicholas Millman's "Combat Colours No. 9" on the A6M. The Kugisho Nr. 266 report on Zero camouflage trials that gives us the description of the standard factory color as being "J3 leaning slightly toward amber color" also says it was glossy. FWIW, I put a semigloss finish (for scale purposes) on the airframe and a matte one on the flight controls of my 1/48 Hasegawa A6M2 last year. Satin would work for your 1/72 build.

I was looking in my personal copy of the book, David. However, you can look at an online facsimile and scroll down the page here: https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5a3134b40672a700015a5d31/5ea6cf979a5ca9e4fe65a619_Spitfire Bookbrochure.pdf

R6692 was the serial of the aircraft in the videos.

See below.