Jump to content

Accuracy of AMMO by Mig Jiménez RAF WWII Colours


Nobby Clarke

Recommended Posts

On 02/04/2021 at 19:21, alt-92 said:

I'm still waiting for the first pink and blue Blenheim to show up

 

Oh... (off to delete those pics I was just about to post in rfi.... :) )

 

Interesting thread, enjoyed your video @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies, very instructive. And one thing it instructed me personally was how untrustworthy my 'colour memory' must be. Spent 3 years flying with the University of Wales Air Squadron at St Athan when some of that station's work was maintaining and repainting dark green/dark sea grey Royal Air Force aeroplanes, so spent many a happy hour around those when flying was cancelled due to weather! And my 'memory' told me the green they were painted was very similar to the final mix you made after adding the chrome green and ultramarine pigments! (I realise I'm talking late 70's RAF dark green not WW2, but I understood 'accepted wisdom' now is they were very similar if not exactly the same. Or is that still another argument?!) So I'll know better than trust my memory in the future (as if I didn't know that already!)

 

Happy muddling everyone

 

Keith

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/04/2021 at 08:50, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

I had an old Humbrol 30...

 

a441c2e0-0c42-47ca-b138-98887e452fbc.png

 

These were taken using my hand-held Nix Pro Color Sensor using D65/10deg standards. It's not as accurate as the factory desk mounted and annually calibrated spectrophotometer, but a million times more accurate than male humans guesstimating!

 

RGB values quoted purely so you can punch them into your favourite Paint-type software and render the colour yourself in sRGB255. Please instead look at the L*a*b* coordinates. L is brightness from 0=theoretical black hole to 100=you're off to heaven white - neither is real in reality. The "a" axis is +red -green. The "b" axis is +yellow -blue. As can be seen, RAF Dark Green for real is a dark yellow (as per my video) with a greenish lean. Humbrol 30 is the other way round - it's a dark green with a yellowish lean which is why people describe is as "too bluish" by comparison. As the CIELAB colourspace system was designed to describe colour the way humans perceive it, people describe Humbrol 30 as being "too bluish" because it has far too weak a positive-b value to look like the real RAF Dark Green which, as per my previous posts and hopefully demonstrated by aforementioned video, is basically just a dark yellow.

 

L*a*b

These are my kind of posts: measurements of RAF museum Dark Green!
If I put these numbers into e-paint.co.uk website (which has a L*a*b database) the closest FS colour is 34094 (modern 3tone NATO green) which is slightly lighter.
This would suggest "bronze" NATO green (RAL6031) is close. But that means far less olive drab-y than most describe WW2 Dark Green.

 

The same website gives RGB of 86/86/75 as BS 241 Dark Green (light, greyish), 72/72/55 as BS 641 Dark Green.(dark more olive)

Very suspicious the 241 comes very very close (<1%) to BS 285 IRR Nato green in the same database, with which late Harriers were painted....
I suspect some wrong assumptions...

 

Munsell

An earlier post by Nick Millman here quoted Munsell measurements for MAP RAF dark green: 10 Y 2.9/1.5
If you put these numbers here: https://pteromys.melonisland.net/munsell/ you will get RGB of 71/70/55, which is very close indeed to the e-paint BS 641 Dark green.

This makes me believe the later is more correct, given the IRR Nato green match earlier...
This how I ended up with a RAL mix of 2 x 6014 + 1 x 6003.


Second thought is the fact SCC15 comes very close but is lighter. My experiments on mixing RAL colour gave me RAL 6014 + RAL 6031 as a match for SCC15.

Edited by Steben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steben said:

 

Very suspicious the 241 comes very very close (<1%) to BS 285 IRR Nato green in the same database, with which late Harriers were painted....
I suspect some wrong assumptions...

 

You have noticed the same curiosity I did previously with respect to BS241 and 285. My 1996 copy of BS381C lists the CIELAB values for them as L36.26 a-1.64 b6.51 and L36.29 a-1.20 b7.24 for them respectively. That's less than any commercial business would expect as batch tolerances. It's unclear why BS285 was ever introduced as it has no reason to exist given it's practically indistinguishable from BS241 which already existed!

 

6675518b-ecc3-4926-a457-f61e0621c7b7.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

You have noticed the same curiosity I did previously with respect to BS241 and 285. My 1996 copy of BS381C lists the CIELAB values for them as L36.26 a-1.64 b6.51 and L36.29 a-1.20 b7.24 for them respectively. That's less than any commercial business would expect as batch tolerances. It's unclear why BS285 was ever introduced as it has no reason to exist given it's practically indistinguishable from BS241 which already existed!

 

6675518b-ecc3-4926-a457-f61e0621c7b7.png

Yes, indeed.
On the other hand, with testimonials of the people in the field at hand which seem to mix up anything, it is less a surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

You have noticed the same curiosity I did previously with respect to BS241 and 285. My 1996 copy of BS381C lists the CIELAB values for them as L36.26 a-1.64 b6.51 and L36.29 a-1.20 b7.24 for them respectively. That's less than any commercial business would expect as batch tolerances. It's unclear why BS285 was ever introduced as it has no reason to exist given it's practically indistinguishable from BS241 which already existed!

Although it doesn't explain why BS285 and BS241 are so close, the following document written by Clive Elliott contains a lot of very interesting historical information on British Army dark greens including BS285 which was created for the British version of NATO Green with Infra Red Reflecting (IRR) properties. Its well worth the read.

http://www.warwheels.net/images/BritishArmyGreenPaintsElliott1.pdf

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Steben said:

 

L*a*b

These are my kind of posts: measurements of RAF museum Dark Green!
If I put these numbers into e-paint.co.uk website (which has a L*a*b database) the closest FS colour is 34094 (modern 3tone NATO green) which is slightly lighter.
This would suggest "bronze" NATO green (RAL6031) is close. But that means far less olive drab-y than most describe WW2 Dark Green.

+++

 

When you see "old" Bundeswehr vehicles in RAL 6031 (be it single color or in combination with Tar Black (9021) and Leather Brown (8027)) they all show "patina" (rather bleaching and/or chalking and patches, some even in 6014) that in my perception do not match any reproduction of RAF Dark Green I came across (I wasn't there when the BOB took place). But then WW II lasted only a few years and those old Bundeswehr vehicles had much more time to collect some weathering (and they used a different binder as far as I know).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Nobby Clarke said:

Although it doesn't explain why BS285 and BS241 are so close, the following document written by Clive Elliott contains a lot of very interesting historical information on British Army dark greens including BS285 which was created for the British version of NATO Green with Infra Red Reflecting (IRR) properties. Its well worth the read.

http://www.warwheels.net/images/BritishArmyGreenPaintsElliott1.pdf

 

Perhaps BS285 was also meant to be a direct replacement for BS241 in particular cases that needed IR suppression such as fighting vehicles, while things like water bowsers and GP vehicles do not and hence use the non-IRR color. Generally, if special capabilities aren't thought to be needed, they aren't provided. Even in wartime, military budgets aren't unlimited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2021 at 11:27 AM, elger said:

Like I mentioned previously in this thread, there was a guy who tried to paint his F-104 with actual paint of F-104s and the model looked all wrong.

I onbce heard a tale of someone who had spent a couple of years to scatchbuild a large scale F-104G model and persuaded a friend who worked in a Dutch AF paint barn to use actual Starfighter paint on his model.... only to have the AF paint totally melt his model.  

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 2:25 PM, Rolls-Royce said:

Perhaps BS285 was also meant to be a direct replacement for BS241 in particular cases that needed IR suppression such as fighting vehicles, while things like water bowsers and GP vehicles do not and hence use the non-IRR color. Generally, if special capabilities aren't thought to be needed, they aren't provided. Even in wartime, military budgets aren't unlimited.

I don't think 241/641 was specified for Army or RAF vehicles? 

 

I could be wrong.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be at cross purposes here but the BS381C only concerns the colour and appearance. It doesn't hold any meaning over any other properties of a paint or any other substance - it's literally just the colour of something whether that's paper, ink, fabric dye or anything else which can be manufactured a certain colour.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 7:43 AM, Hook said:

I onbce heard a tale of someone who had spent a couple of years to scatchbuild a large scale F-104G model and persuaded a friend who worked in a Dutch AF paint barn to use actual Starfighter paint on his model.... only to have the AF paint totally melt his model.  

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

Not surprised. Full scale aircraft paints are tough stuff - they have to be, given the wide range of environments and conditions the aircraft operate in - and the thinners and carriers involved are pretty gnarly!

Edited by Rolls-Royce
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi,

 

If only the RAF Museums series Book Vol 3 was on all the bookshelves and available at a decent price to us all and also the paint manufacturers, year after year, and the paint manufacturers could be bothered to even refer to it, we would all be able to use any paint brand and get the colours the RAF used correct, and solve this debate and mystery over what should be straightforward on what is our RAF from WW2 and what has KNOWN colours.

I wasnt aware of this thread and have posted at

about the fact that it appears from magazine photos seen on the internet (note that) AMMO have just gone and led astray modellers (as if there wasnt a problem already ) by suggesting to them their RAF early war colours are the way to go in modelling early war RAF aircraft. I know the Gunze Sanyo  RAF Dk Earth is wrong and the Dk Green is also wrong, any orangy hue to the brown on a model, you can bet your bottom dollar its GS in use, however AMMO have just gone and made GS look good, from what I see anyway. Admittedly different photos of their book may differ, but not enough to explain the MASSIVE difference between what is seen and the correct RAF colours. No way on gods earth have they even attempted to match the bible, the RAF Museum Vol3 book. That book was produced in 1976, I havent seen anywhere on any model show bookshelf a single reference accurate paint chip chart to the RAF since then. Such should not stop a new paint range from tracking one down, but manufacturers apparently cant be bothered.

Quote

Nobby...fed up finding that a new paint range doesnt match the RAF book,

 

quite right. I also keep buying a new range hoping to find correct colours and the dream paint for brush and airbrush, as we cant even get a brushable paint anymore.

 

Model photos in the latest IPMS mag (Felixstowe on front cover), compare the Stirling top left (looks pretty good in fact referring to the images in my thread) to the Spitfire at bottom, clearly RAF paints available to us differ, actually the spit looks like the AMMO shades ! I wonder what was used on it.

 

Modellers say in threads I am happy with this or that, but thats not saying it matches the original MAP colours, if the modeller is happy , then so be it, but talking about does it match the original colours is a different  thing. Thread gets diluted into whos happy with what, photos are taken in doors, or in sun, colour comparison on spoons is not easy, grey paper with holes in it is the way, in a north light no reflectance , daylight, and AdobeRGB  not sRGB.

 

The Hurricane in valejo english uniform is too orangy a brown, just compare that to the Cosford spit in my thread which matched the book vol3, and was the result of liaison with RAF museum colour references in the archives. If the brown has an orange feel to it, its wrong. There is a thread on BM where I indicated the Valejo colours 873 and 893 for Dk Earth and Dk Green respectively and they look absolutely right when compared to the RAF book and on a model. ( I also found that Humbrol acrylic 116 was an exact match for Dk Green, looking at my notes).

The basic problem is paint manufacturers cant be bothered or get someone else who cant be bothered, to do the matching. As for all the tosh of scale effect, my spit is in the same shade as the book, its 1/72 and looks absolutely fine. decades ago I stood 72 ft from a target colour, if one does that with a 1/72 spit it will match the real thing size wise, and the unfaded colour in my hand matched the full size colour painted out, this was to test a theory from Monogram of adding different % of white for different scales, it blew that apart.

if I want to fade a colour let me do so, dont sell me pre-faded, as you mr paint manufacturer dont know if I am doing 1/24 or 1/32 or 1/48 or 1.72 or 1/144 so doing so you make your paint unusable. We are all capable of adding a lightness, or an overspray of a filter to tone down as one poster has found a product for, but from my tests I didnt see that, not over 72 ft, yes the hills go paler, but look at the distance involved !

 

Also some milky looking varnishes, the acrylic ones, actualy make paint go whiter, spray them onto black plastic card and it goes grey, do that on prefaded paint and it gets even worse.

Spend your time mr paint maker on getting the colour to match the original paint charts, not on faded versions, let us decide on any fading we do. No faded version explains the pea green and pinky brown of AMMO, and no magazine photography can shift the hue that much, but I will finalise my judgement on painting out their paint.

 

If anyone has used AMMO and has photos in daylight it will be interesting to see such. Better still spray it on a square of plastic card and lay it against the RAF book chart and photo it in daylight north light NOT on a table outdoors, no reflectance from sky,  indoors next to window interior lights off will do, and establish correct exposure first with a grey card or if using white paper, lessen then by 2.5 stops. (forget mobile phones), I recently was sent a photo of green trousers and they looked brown, mobile phone at play., Huawei or whatever the name is.

 

Finally these colours are just not right at all , and these are daylight, OMG YUK,  the green is diabolical, so if this is showing us daylight AMMO, from the pot, then definitely they are best avoided. if that green was replaced with a correct green the brown might be getting towards acceptable as a faded jaded brown, needs less pink about it)
 

spacer.png

 

and here is what correct looks like:-

spacer.png

spacer.png

 

and here is AMMO from their won website where we suppose they are careful to portray their colours correctly

spacer.png

Merlin

Edited by Merlin
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem very sure that the RAF Museum Vol3 book dark green and dark earth colour chips are the only correct interpretations of these colours.

 

What proof is there to back this up?

 

Even if we were to discount WWII era colour photographs as unreliable, Numerous WWII RAF aircrew recollections of flying "sand and spinach" painted aircraft would tend to be at least one more line of evidence  indicating that there were variations of these colours.

Edited by wmcgill
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wmcgill said:

You seem very sure that the RAF Museum Vol3 book dark green and dark earth colour chips are the only correct interpretations of these colours.

 

What proof is there to back this up?

The books paint chips chart reproduce the wartime colour standards.   I've never seen anyone in many many colour debate threads question this. 

as for 'well colours vary'  yes, but please read the link below for reasons as to why they won't vary much.

15 minutes ago, wmcgill said:

 

Even if we were to discount WWII era colour photographs as unreliable, Numerous WWII RAF aircrew recollections of flying "sand and spinach" painted aircraft would tend to be at least one more line of evidence  indicating that there were variations of these colours.

Colours fade, and very few servicemen were interested in colours,  'sand and spinach'  just sounds like catchy slang, so hardly of use.   

 

I don't know if you read the entire thread,  but this is one of the most interesting set of observations regarding real world paint, and levels of variation.  @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies runs a paint company, and has made up samples of Royal Navy Paint from wartime formulas, to give a thumbnail background on this linked post.

 a few post later there is a video showing mixing from pigments.

 

Personally these have been some of the most informative and 'join the dots' posts on paint I have seen in ages. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keefr, speak to the Medway Aircraft Preservation Society or RAF Museum archives, they will tell you they spent time with Hendon getting the colours correct , not sure why you say they may be incorrect. unless you are an AMMO MIG fan.

Speak to Steve at Warbird Colours who will tell you the RAF book is the bible on this.

 

The original colours decreed to be those used on RAF aircraft are in the book, on that Cosford spitfire and at RAF archives, fact !

 

Just found they are at it again , cyan for the RAF.

colours in time faded, Green loses the blue pigment first, and becomes a grass green in time, witness Lancasters VN.N out on the airfield.  The colours are marketed as non faded after many months. The BoB didnt last long enough for many of the spits to get to that stage. witness the captured spit being repainted with crosses, and the in flight shots in colour, on the net somewhere.

 

I havent taken a lot of time to write this up to be told its wrong. AMMO are wrong, not the MAP in WW2.

 

Two modellers at an airshow, Red Arrows fly past, modeller says, very nice but they have got the paint wrong, what makes you say that the other modeller replies, 'cos my pot of Red Arrows red by AMMO is pinker than that !

 

If modellers want to represent a battered very faded example of an RAF aircraft, then use AMMO, though even then its a little overdone and the hues I dont think are right, but if you want to represent a standard RAF aircraft , especially an N or P or X serialled spit, then think again as their paint would not have got to that colouration so quickly in the Battle of Britain. AMMO are not from what I see marketing this as an extreme weathered set. AMMOs green hasnt got the contrast on the brown when seen in B/W yet we see a higher contrast normally in B/W WW2 pics more akin to the MAP paint chips.

 

Merlin

Edited by Merlin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy,

Quote

The original colours decreed to be those used on RAF aircraft are in the book, on that Cosford spitfire and at RAF archives, fact !

MAPS went to Hendon, got hold of the original MAP paint charts and colour matched them, they told me they went to a lot of trouble, On the display day of the Spitfire at MAPS I took along my book, and found the colours matched exactly, saying so I was told they bloody well should do, we went to Hendon and used their paint charts, postcard sized things or whatever, hendon helped with the research etc, so I then knew my book produced by Hendon matched their archives on the Dk Green and Dk Brown.

 

All I am saying here is hardly any modellers get the RAF colours as MAP intended them to be, for them, to be like AMMO they have to be wildly different, very faded, not sure even then after many months exposed to the elements that brown goes a pinkish hue even then. and Dark green does lose the blue but eek thats a very grassy green AMMO.

lets at least have a paint range that matches the original spec, I kept buying paint ranges but none do, get told well they all differed. Thats just manufacturers covering for the fact that they cant be bothered, and modellers for the fact that they also dont care or didnt realise the paint range was not researched.

 

I collect any examples of RAF genuine colour images WW2 and in all of them I have not seen anything like AMMO's.

 

There is a thread somewhere on early war roundel colours and in there posters have  put colour images, .

 

Challenge, someone find us a genuine colour image with the green and brown of AMMOs.

 

Merlin

Edited by Merlin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colours do change with time, but RAF Dark Green did not and maybe even does not always change to a grass green.  It often changed towards dark brown, as you would surely expect from an olive colour.  This certainly could have been observed in any of the museums with collections of 50s jets: Hunters, Meteors.

 

One aspect that often seems to be forgotten  by those who say "How do you know?" is that we have not risen afresh from the ground yesterday.  There has been a continuous thread of modellers and enthusiasts talking about aircraft camouflage colours since the very years under discussion.  Modelling is not a new hobby.  C. Rupert Moore was an official war artist, and painted the covers for Aeromodeller in the war years, and produced the artwork in the first Harleyford book on camouflage in the late 40s - before the well-known "bible" of the mid 50s.  There has been a constant flow of comment throughout this time.  Nowadays we can be better informed because we have access to information kept classified for years, but modellers alive today were discussing colours with those who actually saw them because they lived through those years, and like modellers today were not slow in talking when things changed.

 

Much as they were not slow in complimenting Humbrol on their first Authentic colours, where I first saw a Dark Green that was an olive and noticeably different to Humbrol 30!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite not being a restoration or colour photograph this image is quite informative (from the Alan Norman Feary Facebook page) . Would the "one true" dark earth please stand up...spitfire-1-N3025maybe-609sqn-PR-R-crash-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wmcgill said:

Numerous WWII RAF aircrew recollections of flying "sand and spinach" painted aircraft

"Not worth a cracker" is perhaps a bit harsh but there are many anecdotal instances and two scholarly works, as yet unpublished, indicating that operators recollections of the colour of items is not good. A study at Dulux indicated recollections of colour swatches was good for 24h, not so good at 1 week and random after one month. The airline study showed pilots had almost no recollection of aircraft colours beyond the "house colour" - red for Qantas, blue for BA (at the time) and many cabin crew were unsure of the colour of passenger seats. I was an unwitting participant in the second study and performed dismally at remembering the colour of the inside of a 737.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

 

Some rare colour shots RAF from my thread on roundel colours, I am not seeing a pink brown or a grass green and the low contrast of green to brown, except for the lanc VN.N, but AMMO are marketing regular colours not RAF Lanc after many months in the sun colour range.

spacer.png

4871667320_9c927dbabe_z.jpg

spacer.png

2527521628_b66bedd8c5_z.jpg

601-2.jpg

2527541716_722f54a43f_b.jpg

5480779565_08b3c5c056_z.jpg

7w9XYb0.jpg

 

There is a photo of a pilot in peaked cap and RAF 4pp tunic beside a spit nose silver undersides but I cannot find it, but its like the Dk Green Dk Brown of the Hendon book and MAP paint chips in the hendon archives. (making sure I mention the MAP archives for those who now seem to distrust the book !)

and now the faded VN.N, compare to Lanc far right. I am not seeing an AMMO type pinky brown even then, or a saturated grass green, compare the Lancs green to the grass.,

17684693261_8b32369a7b_o.jpg

 

and here is a restoration for which the brief was 100% accuracy, by Spitfire Mk1 Partners, and the restoration team again went to great lengths to get the colours right.

spacer.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Merlin said:

I am not seeing a pink brown or a grass green and the low contrast of green to brown, except for the lanc VN.N, but AMMO are marketing regular colours

I don't think anyone disagrees the Ammo colours are off.    

 

45 minutes ago, Merlin said:

There is a photo of a pilot in peaked cap and RAF 4pp tunic beside a spit nose silver undersides but I cannot find it,

these

2527522818_8d96956cd5_b.jpgSpitfire  Mk. I by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

5420569821_84a1e06959_o.jpgEarly Spitfire at Hornchurch  1939. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

the whole of the albums Spitfire images are here. 

Flickr Search

If you cahnge the type in the address bar you can look up other types in the same way, Hurricanes here

Flickr Search

 

 

45 minutes ago, Merlin said:

but its like the Dk Green Dk Brown of the Hendon book and MAP paint chips in the hendon archives. (making sure I mention the MAP archives for those who now seem to distrust the book !)

One poster asked as to the veracity of the book. 

Among the usual suspects in these colour threads, it is considered THE reference.

 

 

Regarding paint fading these maybe of general interest, they are from the above link.

 

Dark Green, and fading,

16403965595_5fed760f20_o.jpgSpitfire Mk. V ? by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

""EP178VbCBAFM45M9MU 14-6-42 222S 15-7-42 242S 11-8-42 411S 23-9-42 402S 25-3-43 19S 22-4-43 65S 30-6-43 130S 'PJ-B' 15-8-43 VASM 11-3-44 fuel syst Basta mods 2TAF 19-5-45"

and is stated as being with the 2nd TAF in 1945."

 

Note the upper wing C1 roundels, and the fresh Dark Green where the tailband has been painted out.  The  paintjob I doubt is the original 1942, got a respray in march 44 with fuel system mods?

 

 

This is stated to be 453 Sq in the comments,

2526700539_c8bf479b5a_o.jpgSpitfire by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

interesting seeing the fading,  and how well the paint is holding up, only tiny scratches round access fasterners showing.

 

Dark earth

14780326836_c9727d9f2c_o.jpgRCAF Spitfire V,  1943. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

note the fresh touch ups, of both Dark Earth and Middle Stone, which gives a very good idea of how they fade in harsh sunlight.   Again, and note how well the paint is holding up, apart from wear on front wingroot and around fasteners/front of cowl, and apart from fading,  a cared for but worn airframe.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

This certainly could have been observed in any of the museums with collections of 50s jets: Hunters, Meteors.


May be an example of this type of ageing and finally a use to put one’s bottle of Ammo MIG RAF grass green to 😉


This 1957 Hawker Hunter XF509 was fixed on a pole outside the Humbrol factory in Hull, closed in 2006 before being relocated to a military museum at Fort Paull, Hull, until its closure late last year, when it was privately purchased by Lyndon Davies, chief executive of Hornby Hobbies, to be put on display at the Hornby UK office in Margate. 
 

https://uk.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/news/hornby-ceo-donates-hawker-hunter

 


spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very interesting topic.

The question of colors, which tint or shine they have, all variations of shine during a span of time, how they change in certain environmental circumstances, is a basic thing.

In many different fields colors play a dominant role.

Not just modelling, or museums to show correct exhibits.

Not at all.

Also in art.

In culture.

In some fields the tint or specific shine of color is a decision of huge sum of money.

You may not believe it, but it is true.

I can give you an idea:

 

As a modeler and stamp collector with one leg in the museums:

 

If you have one hundred samples of one stamp, on one sheet or from many sheets, new or old stamps, you may find distinctions of the tint or shade of color.

Even of stamps from today! New ones. Not just old ones.

 

On aircraft you may have the same situation.

You may differ from a fresh painted, a flown aircraft, or an aircraft which is close to the scrapyard.

An aircraft which is polished for parade, or a aircraft which looks battle worn.

In some times, you may even not have the words to describe a color.

Color is something of a secret, if you want to have the correct color a second time.

It will always differ a little. Like the geometry of a model vs. the original.

Some differences hurt, some you may accept.

Happy modelling

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...