keefr22 Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 1 hour ago, rossm said: Trying to follow the story of Sky in Paul Lucas Camouflage and Markings, Battle of Britain May to Dec 1940 does my head in. Interesting as that is, it always appears to me to be that it might be based on a fair bit of conjecture? Having said that I do enjoy painting the bottom of a Spitfire in Eau de nil, or a Hurricane in Sky Blue, because it may have been so...!! 1 hour ago, TheBaron said: See my comments above about the historical 'why' and 'how' of paint as a material, rather than just the 'what' of appearances. If such a book has already been done for the Luftwaffe it can self-evidently be done for the RAF. No? I'd guess that, as others more versed in these things have already said Tony, it would take a decade or so's trawling through the archives to pull all the technical stuff together. Guessing again, much of that info should be in the archives as I'm sure the late, great Edgar occasionally posted info on paint types and how they should be used as a result of his excellent research? Keith 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted July 30, 2017 Author Share Posted July 30, 2017 13 minutes ago, keefr22 said: the late, great Edgar occasionally posted info on paint types and how they should be used as a result of his excellent research Thanks for reminding me of him - I regret that Mr. Brooks passed away before I returned to modelling Keith but having just downloaded his Spitfire notes that Jon Bius has collated over here: https://www.jonbius.com/edgar-brooks-spitfire-notes/ I suspect that Edgar would have been more than able for the task of producing the definitive colour tome for our generation. I forgot to ask how Little T is? It worries me when he goes all quiet! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 3 hours ago, TheBaron said: See my comments above about the historical 'why' and 'how' of paint as a material, rather than just the 'what' of appearances. If such a book has already been done for the Luftwaffe it can self-evidently be done for the RAF. No? I guess it could, but for sure I haven't got the stamina 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 3 hours ago, TheBaron said: I forgot to ask how Little T is? It worries me when he goes all quiet! He's fine & says hello... I've currently set him the task of getting rid of the 'noise terrorist' West Highland terrier thing next door that keeps incessantly howling and yapping....so far he's failed in his mission! K 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, TheBaron said: Hi Dave! There seems to be a misunderstanding developing here. I've no interest in another book simply identifying RAF colours (or indeed the vagaries of weathering) - why the Merrick book stands out is the wealth of detail about the uses and development of paint and pigment as materials on aircraft, application processes etc. within a specific historical context, which is another matter entirely. It discusses the 'why' and 'how' of the matter in great detail, as opposed to just the 'what'. No, that's what I meant, the British colours and there development are pretty well recorded, if obscurely, even the changes in materials. (E.g. Development of type S paints) And there are few UK colours whose appearance is a matter of debate. Having it all in one place would be good. nick Millman has written extensively on it here and in his blog, especially on matters such as the reflectance. Edited July 30, 2017 by Dave Fleming 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted July 30, 2017 Author Share Posted July 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said: No, that's what I meant, the British colours and there development are pretty well recorded, if obscurely, even the changes in materials. (E.g. Development of type S paints) And there are few UK colours whose appearance is a matter of debate. Having it all in one place would be good. Sorry for picking-up on you wrongly Dave - I think we're in complete agreement on these matters! 1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said: nick Millman has written extensively on it here and in his blog, especially on matters such as the reflectance. Do you have a link to Nick's blog you could pass on? I've a lot of respect for his knowledge but when I went searching just now this wasn't what I expected to find.... http://www.modelmayhem.com/Niki_NM Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 http://amair4raf.blogspot.com/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Excellent though the Merrick & Kiroff books are, and despite nobody as far as I'm aware constructing a coherent argument against their primary conclusions, modellers have widely rejected them anyway. It's a pair of books that everyone claims to have owned at least one of at some point yet I see no let-up of high contrast RLM70/71 schemes and turquoise RLM65. Writing books of that depth must be all consuming. Just constructing an argument against two colours and suggesting a correction took ages to sort out and we're still at it with the rest. As I see it, someone would only be motivated to undertake such a task if they believed it could change anything - i.e. peoples' beliefs on the subject. Witnessing how soundly ignored Merrick & Kiroff's work is when modellers actually crack open the paint for their Luftwaffe subjects, I can well understand how anyone might be inclined to think that writing to such depths again might be a waste of effort. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iang Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) Speaking as someone who spent 5 years researching and writing a camouflage and markings book based on primary materials (Fleet Air Arm Camouflage and Markings, Atlantic and Mediterranean Theatrers 1937-41), I think that the book that is being mooted on the RAF from, say, the Munich Crisis until the end of the War, would take significantly more time than people generally appreciate. I was researching and writing in my spare time alongside a full time job (but at the time this job took me to The National Archives on a regular basis, which helped). Even if someone was able to devote themselves to the task full time and had easy access to document and photographic archives, I would think that it would take a decade of full time concentrated effort to complete if it was going to satisfy the target consumer. As I see it the tasks that would be particularly difficult are: (i) sourcing and then accurately dating photographs by aircraft type (essential when changes in camouflage and markings are applied at different speed and possibly with different interpretations by units); (ii) and obtaining and analysing paint samples from museums/private collections. I had only limited success with (ii) and my book is the poorer for it as a result. However, I would say that in terms of the total time for the task, (i) occupied possibly as much as 50% of my time. The actual archival research takes less time and is significantly easier than I suspect most people imagine, though it is rarely the case that all the relevant documents have been preserved. Fitting the incomplete jigsaw of extant written documentation together with the patchy photographic record is demanding however, and requires concentrated effort. In the case of the RAF during WW2 this would be an immense task. For the FAA book, I was fortunate to be dealing with a relatively small number of front-line squadrons (20 - 25) and a small number of aircraft types (10). The time it would take to understand the nuances of camouflage and marking variation by unit for RAF types for the entire duration of the war would be significantly greater, as there were many more units and a greater number of aircraft types. I would also presume that the subject would need to be split into several volumes (perhaps Fighter, Bomber, Coastal and Training Commands). Even the process of writing this down on paper makes me think that a decade of full time effort would be a conservative estimate. Edited July 31, 2017 by iang 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted July 31, 2017 Author Share Posted July 31, 2017 48 minutes ago, iang said: Even the process of writing this down on paper makes me think that a decade of full time effort would be a conservative estimate That would be the definitive verdict on the matter as far as I'm concerned. 1 hour ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said: Excellent though the Merrick & Kiroff books are, and despite nobody as far as I'm aware constructing a coherent argument against their primary conclusions, modellers have widely rejected them anyway. It's a pair of books that everyone claims to have owned at least one of at some point yet I see no let-up of high contrast RLM70/71 schemes and turquoise RLM65. Writing books of that depth must be all consuming. Just constructing an argument against two colours and suggesting a correction took ages to sort out and we're still at it with the rest. As I see it, someone would only be motivated to undertake such a task if they believed it could change anything - i.e. peoples' beliefs on the subject. Witnessing how soundly ignored Merrick & Kiroff's work is when modellers actually crack open the paint for their Luftwaffe subjects, I can well understand how anyone might be inclined to think that writing to such depths again might be a waste of effort. Hi Jamie. I'm nowhere near learned enough to comment upon the veracity of some of their conclusions in relation to the uses made by modellers, but what interested me about that particular volume was the reproduction of historical evidence about how colours were arrived at, testing durability, composition etc.. I've always had that childlike obsession about why things are a particular colour i.e., why at some point somebody decided it should be so. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 33 minutes ago, TheBaron said: That would be the definitive verdict on the matter as far as I'm concerned. Pah, this clueless numpty came up with that estimate yesterday...!! I do have to say though Tony, if you don't already have it, I highly recommend Ian's FAA book, his meticulous research is certainly reflected in the finished work & I'm certain you'd enjoy it! Keith 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted July 31, 2017 Author Share Posted July 31, 2017 2 hours ago, keefr22 said: Pah, this clueless numpty came up with that estimate yesterday...!! I do have to say though Tony, if you don't already have it, I highly recommend Ian's FAA book, his meticulous research is certainly reflected in the finished work & I'm certain you'd enjoy it! Keith It is indeed a most excellent volume Keith, and is seldom more than 6' from the bench. My apologies for any hurt feelings sir - it is never wise to antagonize a man who keeps dinosaurs as pets.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 It'd take more than that to even bruise my feelings Tony - my skin's just as thick as (same could probably be said for me 'ead...!!) K 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 5 hours ago, keefr22 said: Pah, this clueless numpty came up with that estimate yesterday...!! Pah, this clueless numpty came up with that estimate the day before yesterday...!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 12 minutes ago, Seahawk said: Pah, this clueless numpty came up with that estimate the day before yesterday...!! I know, I nicked it off you! Wasn't going to admit that though....!! K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iang Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 8 hours ago, keefr22 said: I highly recommend Ian's FAA book, his meticulous research is certainly reflected in the finished work & I'm certain you'd enjoy it! Kind of you to say so, Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now