RLM/Revell paint conversion chart

[Sturmovik]

I never saw a conversion chart for RLM/Revell colours, so I´m publishing one I made in 2015 with hopes of helping those who also paint with Revell. It can be used both with the acrylics and the enamels. The most recent colour added was 361 Satin Olive Green.

 

RLM 01 (Silver)                                         Revell Metallic 90 (Silver).

 

RLM 02 (Grey)                                           Revell Matt 45 (Light Olive).

 

RLM 04 (Yellow)                                       Revell Matt 15 (Yellow).

 

RLM 21 (White)                                         Revell Matt 05 (White).

 

RLM 22 (Black)                                         Revell Matt 08 (Black).

 

RLM 23 (Red)                                            Revell Matt 36 (Carmine Red). 

 

RLM 24 (Blue)                                           Revell Matt 56 (Blue).

 

RLM 25 (Light Green)                               Revell Matt 48 (Sea Green).

 

RLM 65 (Light Blue)                                 Revell Matt 49 (Light Blue).

 

RLM 66 (Dark Grey)                                 Revell Matt 77 (Dust Grey).

 

RLM 70 (Black Green)                              Revell Matt 40 (Black Green).

 

RLM 71 (Dark Green)                               Revell Matt 39 (Dark Green).

 

RLM 72 (Green)                                        Revell Matt 39 + Revell Matt 15.

 

RLM 73 (Green)                                        Revell Matt 47 + Revell Matt 45.

 

RLM 74 (Green Grey)                               Revell Matt 69 (Granite Grey).

 

RLM 75 (Violet Grey)                               Revell Matt 47 (Mouse Grey).

 

RLM 76 (Light Blue Grey)                        Revell Matt 49 (90%) + Revell Matt 05 (10%). 

 

RLM 77 (Light Grey)                                Revell Matt 77 (Light Grey).

 

RLM 78 (Light Blue)                                Revell Matt 49 (Light Blue).

 

RLM 79 (Sand Yellow)                             Revell Matt 17 (Sand Brown).

 

RLM 80 (Olive Green)                              Revell Satin 361 (Olive Green).

 

RLM 81 (Brown Violet)                            Revell Matt 46 (NATO Olive).

 

RLM 82 (Light Green)                              Revell Matt 65 (Bronze Green).

 

RLM 83 (Dark Green)                               Revell Matt 68 (RAF Green).

 

RLM 84 (Green Blue)                               Revell Matt 59 (Duck Egg Blue/RAF Sky).  

 

 

 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Which RLM colour reference is this based on?

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Which RLM colour reference is this based on?

Hi Jamie

 

I think it is more that Revell paint seems to  originate from Germany,   and many are matched to  RAL standards,  and despite the funny names are reasonable matches  for various Luftwaffe colours I believe.  (though  if Revell  quoted RAL numbers it would help) 

actually, this gotme thinking and it looks  like Revell do use the RAL names,  but not the numbers

http://www.ralcolor.com/

from list below

Revell Blaugrau Matt 79  (RLM 75) -

RAL 7031

Blaugrau

 

though I'dthink

RAL 7036

Platingrau

looks more like RLM 75

 

Revell Mausgrau Matt 47 (RLM 74) -

RAL 7005

Mausgrau

 

 

 

 

The above list is most likley from carious Revell instructions,  i  did  the same thing a while back here

 

Quote

right, according to the instructions of Revell 109G-6

https://www.revell.de/en/products/model-building/aircraft/world-war-ii/id/04665.html

 

S= Revell Blaugrau Matt 79  (RLM 75)

T= Revell Mausgrau Matt 47 (RLM 74)

 

annoying the paint diagram shows only the "S" and "T"  and notes the RLM numbers, the paint  list shows the paint name/number and gives it a letter.

 

the flippin' Revell site does not do anything helpful like list the RLM colours  in the paint list though, so it's the cross reference, which is a PITA,  

 

An actual list of the revell paint and RLM equivalents would be useful, I'm sure  it's out there somewhere!

 

A final point, the thread would have got better answers if titled,  "RLM 74/75, which Revell Aqua or Humbrol colours", and ask for comments  on how the paint brushes,  or hints  on how to  get the  best.

 

HTH

T

 

PS

more looking  at  Revell instructions

 

RLM 04 Gelb = 15 yellow 

RLM 24 Blau = a mix of 90% 52 blue  + 10% 05 white 

RLM 25 = 364 leaf green 

 

RLM 65 Blau = 49 light blue  (note Revell seem to say this for RLM 76 as well, but can't be both)

RLM 66 Schwarz grau = Revell 77 Dusty Grey

 

RLM 70 schwarzgrun = 40 black green

RLM 71 Dunkelgrun = 39 dark green

 

RLM 82 dark  green = 65 bronze green 

 

RLM 02 = revell 45 light olive matt - which maybe one of the best.

see 

I think the 'Humbrol' should be 'Revell' but read the thread,  many RLM 02's are not good matches.

 

 

Looking  at the list above the one thing that stikes me is the RLM 65/76/78  recommendations,   as adding some white to  RLM 65 does not make 76,   and 78 is a deeper blue.  (plus the grey confusion)

Sorry, a bit rambling,  but hopefully some useful  details.

 

 

@Sturmovik   if you really want to double check,  there is the paint chip chart from

http://www.crecy.co.uk/luftwaffe-colours-1935-1945-paint-chip-chart

Quote

The Luftwaffe Colours Paint Chip Chart comes free with the book (Luftwaffe Colours 1935-1945 - 9781902109077 - £34.95) and also available for purchase at £7.95.

which are actual paint chips and are considered the best available.

 

HTH

 

 

 

[Fin]

First of all, thanks to Sturmovik for putting together the list! Secondly, for anyone interested, quite a while ago I found this Revell conversion to Model Master/Testors guide:

http://downloads.hobbico.com/misc/rmx/TES_Revell_Paint_Match_Guide.pdf

It cites the RAL numbers and, by way of MM paint names, some of the RLM codes, but in this case it`s not as comprehensive as the list from the OP.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

FS34096 = FS34052 according to that.

 

Still doesn't say who's idea of RLM colours we're "comparing" against either - Eagle Editions and Merrick & Kiroff reached rather different conclusions in some cases.

 

A little closer to topic, Merrick & Kiroff's RLM 78 little resembles RAL 6027.

 

Without knowing the source of RLM colours to compare against, and the methodology used for matching, it's a potentially dangerous reference. I don't consider that Hobbico very compelling, personally - and definitely a long way from being suitable for linking an RLM number to a model paint manufacturer's numbers via approximate equivalence through another model paint range's numbers (which themselves possibly don't actually match the RLM colours - who's version of which is also unknown).

 

[Fin]

9 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Without knowing the source of RLM colours to compare against, and the methodology used for matching, it's a potentially dangerous reference. I don't consider that Hobbico very compelling, personally - and definitely a long way from being suitable for linking an RLM number to a model paint manufacturer's numbers via approximate equivalence through another model paint range's numbers (which themselves possibly don't actually match the RLM colours - who's version of which is also unknown).

 

"Dangerous reference"? I`m pretty sure I read this thread correctly in that it is about matching existing Revell paints to RLM colours (and Troy commented on the RAL numbers hence my link), not about which hobby paint, let alone entire range, is best for accurately depicting the originals (a subject on which I don`t even want to touch). Many hobby brands have a guide linking their paints to RLM codes (for what it`s worth). Revell doesn`t hence the topic here which is meant for Revell users.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

1 hour ago, Fin said:

"Dangerous reference"? I`m pretty sure I read this thread correctly in that it is about matching existing Revell paints to RLM colours (and Troy commented on the RAL numbers hence my link), not about which hobby paint, let alone entire range, is best for accurately depicting the originals (a subject on which I don`t even want to touch). Many hobby brands have a guide linking their paints to RLM codes (for what it`s worth). Revell doesn`t hence the topic here which is meant for Revell users.

RLM =/= RAL

 

Something =~= something else =~= RAL =~= one (undisclosed) opinion on RLM isn't a reference. It's drivel.

[Sturmovik]

6 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Which RLM colour reference is this based on?

It´s more of comparison chart between the RLM colours I´ve read about and the colours Revell lists on its instructions.

[Sturmovik]

2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Hi Jamie

 

I think it is more that Revell paint seems to  originate from Germany,   and many are matched to  RAL standards,  and despite the funny names are reasonable matches  for various Luftwaffe colours I believe.  (though  if Revell  quoted RAL numbers it would help) 

actually, this gotme thinking and it looks  like Revell do use the RAL names,  but not the numbers

http://www.ralcolor.com/

from list below

Revell Blaugrau Matt 79  (RLM 75) -

RAL 7031

Blaugrau

 

though I'dthink

RAL 7036

Platingrau

looks more like RLM 75

 

Revell Mausgrau Matt 47 (RLM 74) -

RAL 7005

Mausgrau

 

 

 

 

The above list is most likley from carious Revell instructions,  i  did  the same thing a while back here

 

 

Looking  at the list above the one thing that stikes me is the RLM 65/76/78  recommendations,   as adding some white to  RLM 65 does not make 76,   and 78 is a deeper blue.  (plus the grey confusion)

Sorry, a bit rambling,  but hopefully some useful  details.

 

 

@Sturmovik   if you really want to double check,  there is the paint chip chart from

http://www.crecy.co.uk/luftwaffe-colours-1935-1945-paint-chip-chart

which are actual paint chips and are considered the best available.

 

HTH

 

 

 

Revell 79 isn´t RLM 75, the former is much more bluish. When I built Revell´s Ju 87D in 1:32, the instructions called for the use of that colour for the pilot´s suits. Revell 69 is much greener, though I´ve also seen Revell put 78 Tank Grey as RLM 74.

Regarding the blues, Revell states in their instructions that adding white to Revell 49 will make RLM 76, since that one was a paler blue/borderline grey. I don´t know about RLM 78, maybe mixing Revell 56 with white, to make it paler but not as pale as 49 would work? 

[Mike]

While this isn't technically blowing up into a row at the moment, I think we need to be a little more careful about our choice of words to describe each other's opinions.  Thanks.

[Steben]

On 09/03/2018 at 17:17, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

RLM =/= RAL

 

 

Although some are almost identical.

While comparing Luftwaffe charts with RAL colours I noticed some are (almost) bang on. I've added "almost" out of courtesy.
I'm talking about black, white, RLM02, etc....

Others are very close. While many RLM colours simply are non existent in RAL system and deserve a lot more attention imho than discussing whether RLM02 is 100% or 99% RAL7003.

 

We all know some RAL colours were "matched" to RLM colours by the Germans themselves in 1944. Most of these are confirmed with my findings. Given ageing and batch issues, the theoretical difference between some RAL and RLM colours are way too small to elaborate on the nomenclature. For modeling they are completely futile. Even for restoration.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Steben

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

1 hour ago, Steben said:

 

Although some are almost identical.

While comparing Luftwaffe charts with RAL colours I noticed some are (almost) bang on. I've added "almost" out of courtesy.
I'm talking about black, white, RLM02, etc....

Others are very close. While many RLM colours simply are non existent in RAL system and deserve a lot more attention imho than discussing whether RLM02 is 100% or 99% RAL7003.

 

We all know some RAL colours were "matched" to RLM colours by the Germans themselves in 1944. Most of these are confirmed with my findings. Given ageing and batch issues, the theoretical difference between some RAL and RLM colours are way too small to elaborate on the nomenclature. For modeling they are completely futile. Even for restoration.

 

Are you comparing using instruments or a middle aged man's eyeballs? The former is reliable. The latter fairly consistently gets worse with age, especially in males, and 1 in 12 middle aged men have a diagnosable colour perception defect. Perception of and the ability to distinguish between browns, olives and greens is the most common part of the spectrum to degrade. I'd be happy to follow up with an objectively measured analysis of which RLM colours you think equate to RAL since putting data to things is usually the only way to stop these discussions rallying back and forth until someone gets upset.

 

There are lots of modern standard colours which started life as something else, and if landing in the same continent is close enough for you then great. The problems arise, as this 3 year old thread was discussing, when something was approximately similar to something else which again is approximately similar to something else still. What happens next for the confused modeller is two distinct historical colours end up with the same modern reference.

 

I try to be precise because misinformation can be incredibly frustrating. I am awash with reference material and CIELAB data. I know some colours are as near to others as makes no difference. I'm still strongly against making conflated references such as claiming RAL and RLM are the same though because that introduces completely unnecessary confusion.

 

If you'd seen absolute tangle people had made of some topics by taking their own questionable colour-perception then layering on top their own opinions, interpretations and using their "common sense" to fill in gaps they didn't know, then I'm sure you would sympathise with me wanting to clearly separate hard fact that can be traced back to primary source reference and what's my personal opinion or interpretation.

 

US Navy Sea Blues are a great example of this. There were 3 separate blues in use between 1943 and 1947, all approximated by the same FS595 code, which "must be correct" since it was based on the previous one, which itself changed colour in 1947 and therefore wasn't the same as any of the wartime paints. Not a problem really if you want to only build one blue plane. If you have a collection of them though spanning 1943 to Korean conflict, you may wish to be able to perceive the subtle differences between them. Hence I will never tell someone a Hellcat was painted FS15042, because it wasn't. Nobody digging an old spec out of the archives will find FS15042 written on it since FS15042 didn't exist until 1956 - that's a modern interpretation breaking the reference material paper trail. It's misleading and confusing. Saying "the closest modern US Government colour to wartime ANA623 is FS15042" is a different thing and might help someone providing the precise context is passed on - but in model communities this never happens. The context is dropped because someone who knows just enough to make a mess decides it's unimportant, and before you know it it's all over the internet that FS15042 is the "correct" colour for a Hellcat, which is false.

[alt-92]

^^ I have a feeling you could probably save that and copy/paste it with very little edits in many a colour discussion  :D

[Steben]

Let me give an example or two.

 

RLM02 and RLM23

The first is to my eyes in the Merrick Kiroff swatches, according to many and mentioned in 1944 match to RAL7003.

The Hikoki chips show a more yellowish grey.

 

The second is in the Merrick Kiroff swatches very very slightly pinkish/violett like compared to RAL3020, where the Hikoki satch goes to RAL3028. German wartime reference gives 3001.

 

And don't get me started about reference swatches RLM 25...

 

 

Of course you are right eyes are no neutral spectrometric insturments.

Still, eyeballs will never tell two identical colours are different. They'ld rather tell two different ones are close or identical where not.

What is the conclusion in this? Probably the best has nothing to do with discussions regarding measurements or eyes. Probably it should be discussed first how good the references are, not ones eyes?

Comparison with the eyeballs is not for directing paint factories but giving a hint to the path to follow.

The differences colours have "when modeling" exceed the differences between trained eyes and spectrometry. And all are small compared to the vast number of untrained eyes. in the community.

And I do intend to get a good measurement set anyway  .

 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Steben

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Here's what the Nix Pro says. My 1941 Merrick & Kiroff card isn't at my house at the moment as it's being used for colour matching. I've measured the other 3 Merrick cards and included the numbers printed bottom left of each card to identify it. One of the RLM02 chips is a good match for RAL 7003 using Delta E as objective comparison where less than 2 is considered a close match. The other two are ok. In each case the Merrick & Kiroff RLM02 is slightly lighter than RAL 7003. RLM23 doesn't compare so well, although for many people simply being bright red is probably enough...

 

 

5 hours ago, Steben said:

Still, eyeballs will never tell two identical colours are different.

 

Umm, no, but degrading colour perception (i.e. partial colour blindness) will make you think you two different colours are identical. Someone may think they have found a perfect match but someone else can look at the same two colours and see them as distinctly different. People with red-green colour blindness think traffic lights, or red and green electrical wires are the same colour, for example.

[Steben]

6 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Here's what the Nix Pro says. My 1941 Merrick & Kiroff card isn't at my house at the moment as it's being used for colour matching. I've measured the other 3 Merrick cards and included the numbers printed bottom left of each card to identify it. One of the RLM02 chips is a good match for RAL 7003 using Delta E as objective comparison where less than 2 is considered a close match. RLM23 not so much...

 

 

 

Umm, no, but degrading colour perception (i.e. partial colour blindness) will make you think you two different colours are identical. Someone may think they have found a perfect match but someone else can look at the same two colours and see them as distinctly different. People with red-green colour blindness think traffic lights, or red and green electrical wires are the same colour, for example.

I would never argue that. One cannot refute spectrometry. Yet, the results above are exactly my rough conclusions with bare eyes and pictures... rlm23 far off, rlm02 probably enough a match.

Do not underestimate photography. It is an ally. Enough pictures in different ambient will prove or disprove any rough finding.

Recently I matched vallejo 70.894 to RAF dark green. With bare eyes AND extensive photographs. Rolls Royce measured it. dE<2.

But dying to get a NIX.... do you know the differences between pro and light?

Edited July 2, 2021 by Steben

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

3 minutes ago, Steben said:

But dying to get a NIX.... do you know the differences between pro and light?

 

They're great for this sort of stuff. They offer the Pro 2 and the Mini now. Mine is the original Pro. As far as I can tell the main differences in the sensor itself are that the Pro is able to generate / emulate different illuminants and observer angles. I need that sort of thing since some historical data I get is in older formats and it's useful to compare. The Apps are a little different too, the Pro app being more powerful and allowing you more functionality. You can have Delta E comparisons out of two measured colours out of the app. However, if you don't mind typing the colourspace coordinates into a website you can have Delta E calculations anyway. If you just want to be able to objectively compare two colours in front of you and don't mind typing 6 numbers into a website, you can probably get everything you need from the Mini.

[fishplanebeer]

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.

 

I'm absolutely not deriding those who seek complete accuracy as without this attention to detail we wouldn't even have paints that are even close but for a modest modeller like myself if the paint finish looks about right then I'm quite happy with it so this conversion works really well for me, and hopefully for others.

 

All of that said I rely upon Colourcoats paints almost every time, which are based upon extensive research so I've probably shot down my own comments here but on the rare occasions where I do use Revell paints then this conversion chart will prove to be invaluable.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Rolls-Royce]

@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.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Rolls-Royce

[Rolls-Royce]

37 minutes ago, 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.

 

I'm absolutely not deriding those who seek complete accuracy as without this attention to detail we wouldn't even have paints that are even close but for a modest modeller like myself if the paint finish looks about right then I'm quite happy with it so this conversion works really well for me, and hopefully for others.

 

All of that said I rely upon Colourcoats paints almost every time, which are based upon extensive research so I've probably shot down my own comments here but on the rare occasions where I do use Revell paints then this conversion chart will prove to be invaluable.

 

Regards

Colin.

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.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Rolls-Royce

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

57 minutes ago, 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.

 

I'm absolutely not deriding those who seek complete accuracy as without this attention to detail we wouldn't even have paints that are even close but for a modest modeller like myself if the paint finish looks about right then I'm quite happy with it so this conversion works really well for me, and hopefully for others.

 

All of that said I rely upon Colourcoats paints almost every time, which are based upon extensive research so I've probably shot down my own comments here but on the rare occasions where I do use Revell paints then this conversion chart will prove to be invaluable.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

I think pragmatism is always a healthy thing. As modellers we will always do things because we believe it will work better for what we need. Personally I just want the information I look for to be valid and correct, and I want to be able to trust that what's inside a paint container is what it claims to be without someone else's ideas baked into it. This is important for me even when I try to portray weathered models, because I want the relationships between juxtaposed colours to be correct to start with then I can adjust them as appropriate. I find it much harder to harmonise them when they're goofy to start with.

[Rolls-Royce]

1 minute ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

...Personally I just want the information I look for to be valid and correct, and I want to be able to trust that what's inside a paint container is what it claims to be without someone else's ideas baked into it. This is important for me even when I try to portray weathered models, because I want the relationships between juxtaposed colours to be correct to start with then I can adjust them as appropriate. I find it much harder to harmonise them when they're goofy to start with.

Amen!

[Steben]

I think there is a middle zone for modeling where the modeler simply knows a colour is not 100% but has his reasons not to pursue that 100%. Scale effect and ageing along with filters and dust here and there are elements as well.
A skilled modeler will aim for about the same effect on all colours.

 

As I said, in those circumstances 99% is more than enough. It's all about the audience.

The IDF sinai grey discussions for example are full of reluctance by some modelers to paint with the correct 1/1 colour. It is always too dark or too yellow or too this or that for those minds.
Modern sinai grey is simply a rather dark greyorange olive drab if put on a small model. In those situations 1% is "not enough difference".

[Steben]

2 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

They're great for this sort of stuff. They offer the Pro 2 and the Mini now. Mine is the original Pro. As far as I can tell the main differences in the sensor itself are that the Pro is able to generate / emulate different illuminants and observer angles. I need that sort of thing since some historical data I get is in older formats and it's useful to compare. The Apps are a little different too, the Pro app being more powerful and allowing you more functionality. You can have Delta E comparisons out of two measured colours out of the app. However, if you don't mind typing the colourspace coordinates into a website you can have Delta E calculations anyway. If you just want to be able to objectively compare two colours in front of you and don't mind typing 6 numbers into a website, you can probably get everything you need from the Mini.

 

That's great info. Yet observer angle.... I found out this seems very very important. At least to me.

Olive drabs in particular are every different in different angles. Something I link not only to gloss level, but pigments used as well. Always thought red/green pigmented OD's have more difference in hue in angles than ochre based ones. But it is pure pure intuition.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Steben

[Rolls-Royce]

9 minutes ago, Steben said:

 

That's great info. Yet observer angle.... I found out this seems very very important. At least to me. Olive drabs in particular are every different in different angles.

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.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Rolls-Royce