109 Color & Detail

[Jochen Barett]

On 06/06/2021 at 11:37, dov said:

Hallo

Just having seen some models on this forum from the 109.

As a long time modeler with much insight in real aviation and museums, here some ideas:

The colors of cockpits of German a/c are mostly much too dark.

Beside this, the dry brushing is mostly on the too heavy side. Look at some 109s.

Both samples are very accurate in color and detail. From Krakau and Wiener Neustadt close to Vienna.

 

 

xxx

 

xxx

Happy modelling

 

So we now know the 109's landing gear and the inside of the wheel covers is to be painted in light blue or greyish green. Depending on the place of manufacture, overhaul or museum where it is desplayed today. This is just such a relief! But in what instances will we use the buff color on the wheel wells?

 

(SCNR)

[bentwaters81tfw]

Just to throw another spanner in the works. Julien mentioned restoring aircraft. Take a look at the wing of our F-84F. (Yes it's not a 109, but it illustrates a point)

Here we have 2 shades of Zinc Chromate primer, and at least 3 shades of interior green. I'm pretty certain I have other shots showing black..

 

Which is 'correct'? Answers on a postcard - just so we know before applying the 'correct' shade - then a top coat.

[dov]

It is hard to get a clue.

No idea.

[Jochen Barett]

4 hours ago, SafetyDad said:

 

Sadly the Me 163 at Point Cook has been repainted - photos are all we have of the original scheme.

+++

(pics from online sources)

I have most of the JaPo publications, going back to their earliest in the 1980s. The Bf 109 volume you refer to is outstanding from my shelves, but I'll get a copy! 

SD

 

Even the pics of the 163's "original" paint work are all wrong.

a) What about that redbrown paint? Remains of transport protection or primer coming through after taped on protection was torn off? Applied in manufacture, overhaul or in the field?

b) The Germans completey "forgot" (maybe it was sabotage by slave workers!) to do black preshading of panel lines or had to omit this important step due to the war situation and limitd supply of RLM 22 black preshading panel line accent paint.

 

Please excuse me (again!). Many aspects (esp. preshading and black basing) are a fashion in model making. They are artists' methods to produce effects "simulating" a more realistic appearance (often overdone) but are not realistic. Some aspects (mabe "lightening RLM 66 cockpit color" (maybe for scale effect, maybe just to make beloved details visible)) are wrong too, but they "improve" a model - in the eyes of the person building it - and in a certain percentage of people viewing it.

 

In my opinion it is OK to aknowledge there was an LDV giving instructions how to paint a plane and there were prescribed RLM code paints produce with some degree of quality control, and I could hardly call it "wrong" to stick to this, but every now and then we will encounter a strange buff color in a 109 wheel well or a strange blueish color on a BV138 float or a a strange grey (looking like interior RLM 66) on the outside of a He 115. This is (in my opinion) the time for an intelligent guess and considering different ideas and viewpoints - but it could be a great starting point for a lecture as well.

 

(and this is hooked/connected to the quoted contribution of SafetyDad (thanks for the pics!), but my finger is pointing in a few other directions and no finger is pointing in the direction of SafetyDad)

[Icedtea]

On 6/7/2021 at 4:33 PM, dov said:

Just to make a point:

 

To go back to facts:

Even one example is not a statistical significant crowd.

One example gives you an idea as long this particular represents the average.

Which we absolutly do not know.

But we do not know at all.

 

To Tank 152:

To stay calm, and think what you see.

Even 100 books of warbirds will give you ideas.

Ideas what the author thinks.

Ideas, yes. Facts?

Facts, what you see on original photos in this books.

Careful with photos after the war, some aircraft were repainted fo a better look too!

By prisoner of war.

 

If I look at the Australian 109, the only item I would refer to a color as a sample are the inside the fuselage mounted FuG and compass installation.

The outside color of this Australian sample:

It was on the sip, on the harbor with salty air.

Was the transport on deck?

What is the origin of the aircraft?

 

Color:

Always a range.

As a stamp collector:

On stamp shows you one tint one shine of a color.

One sheet of stamps show you a small range.

10 sheets show you much more.

The same with an aircraft.

Each standardized color has a range.

 

Tbolt: Wonderful photos.

Good. It is a new and fresh painted cockpit.

Anyway, it is nice to see how different the perspective is on such a matter.

Look into detail and you may create a model which reflects it quite well.

 

Happy modelling

So state of play is.....An unrestored, pretty much as is 109G in a museum doesnt adequately define original colours but a fully restored repainted museum example does but then further along in the thread this single restored example doesnt define the colours. Hmm even without the fractured english I'm confused. BTW I've seen the Aus. 109G and the other ex GAF aircraft too......they'll do me.

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Icedtea
Too wordy

[Werdna]

2 hours ago, Icedtea said:

So state of play is.....An unrestored, pretty much as is 109G in a museum doesnt adequately define original colours but a fully restored repainted museum example does but then further along in the thread this single restored example doesnt define the colours. Hmm even without the fractured english I'm confused. BTW I've seen the Aus. 109G and the other ex GAF aircraft too......they'll do me.

 

 

Not sure if that's the take-away from this discussion.  It certainly isn't what I was suggesting.  Fresh museum paint - and there have been some shocking examples - doesn't guarantee an authentic interpretation, but then neither, potentially, does 75 year old 'genuine' paint.  Especially on an a/c which had been through a rebuild facility where it presumably received repaired/repainted sections. 

 

If you are looking to model a 75 year old G-6 as it would look today, then the Aus G-6 would be an ideal guide.  It may, however, not be a perfect guide for a 'wartime' finish - unless you think it rolled out of the factory looking exactly like it does now.  The answer, as ever, is probably somewhere in the middle.  If anyone finds it, let me know  

[tank152]

1 hour ago, Werdna said:

 

but then neither, potentially, does 75 year old 'genuine' paint.  Especially on an a/c which had been through a rebuild facility where it presumably received repaired/repainted sections. 

 

If you are looking to model a 75 year old G-6 as it would look today, then the Aus G-6 would be an ideal guide.  It may, however, not be a perfect guide for a 'wartime' finish - unless you think it rolled out of the factory looking exactly like it does now.  The answer, as ever, is probably somewhere in the middle.  If anyone finds it, let me know  

What difference does it make whether an airframe as just rolled off the production line or just left a repair facility? The same paint would have been used wherever it was painted, RLM74/75/76 or whatever, is RLM74/7576 or whatever

It's not like someone at a repair centre cobbled together a few tins of Dulux!!! 

 @antonio argudo has got a collection of relics most have still got paint on them, and the colours are all consistent even though they all come from different wrecks etc. I'll take the AWM G-6 all day long as a guide to colour. 

[Werdna]

1 hour ago, tank152 said:

What difference does it make whether an airframe as just rolled off the production line or just left a repair facility? The same paint would have been used wherever it was painted, RLM74/75/76 or whatever. 

 

Makes no difference at all, but that wasn't the point I was making.  My only point is that unless the argument is that the G-6 in the AWM looks absolutely identical now to how it did when it rolled out of the factory/repair shop 75 years ago, then we have to accept that the paint - while it may be 'original' - is not in it's original colour/shade/condition.

 

1 hour ago, tank152 said:

@antonio argudo has got a collection of relics most have still got paint on them, and the colours are all consistent even though they all come from different wrecks etc. I'll take the AWM G-6 all day long as a guide to colour. 

 

No dispute on colour consistency (although that's probably a different discussion anyway).  But going back to my original point - the G-6 is a perfect guide to what an aircraft looks like after 75 years of fading, weathering, oxidisation, handling, storage, transportation, dismantling, examination, re-assembly and display, - not to mention combat service and general flying hours.  Here's the 'but' though - it 'may' not be a perfect guide to what it looked like 75 years ago.  Personally, I think there is an important difference to be considered there.  However, if anyone would like to put forward a proposition as to why the aircraft's appearance and condition would not have deteriorated at all over 75 years, then that would certainly be worth considering.

[Jochen Barett]

1 hour ago, tank152 said:

What difference does it make whether an airframe as just rolled off the production line or just left a repair facility? The same paint would have been used wherever it was painted, RLM74/75/76 or whatever, is RLM74/7576 or whatever

It's not like someone at a repair centre cobbled together a few tins of Dulux!!! 

 @antonio argudo has got a collection of relics most have still got paint on them, and the colours are all consistent even though they all come from different wrecks etc. I'll take the AWM G-6 all day long as a guide to colour. 

 

OK, I understand 74 is 74 is 74 is 74, but if that is the case how will any book explain to me why in the video shown here

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235094724-109-color-detail/&do=findComment&comment=4106646

around 0:41 I see one kind of 76 ("RLM 84" like) on almost the eintire fuselage and another kind of 76 on the lower engine cowling (containing the oil cooler) plus an RLM 78 like light blue on the MG131 covers (at 1:39) or is that 75? And what three shades of grey were applied to the upper wing (4:13)? Different Lackkette on wing and flap?

 

Was RLM 76 from Warnecke&Böhm used by the factory on the fuselage and RLM 76 from Gustav Ruth by a repair shop and the MG131 covers returned from Africa? Or was the fuselage mottled over with a thin layer of RLM 02 - or did the paint age in a different way? Was there some primer (or old paint) on the fuselage and non on the lower cowling? Was the lower cowling repainted post 1945? Different Lackkette?

 

What paints do I see at 3:18 in the rear part of the canopy? RLM 66 by Gunze (on the access hatch) and RLM 66 on the rigid part by Humbrol? Or is it 70 or 81/83/custom mix on the rigid part? Or 74 on the cover? Or is it regular RLM 66 on both?

 

Or is that Australian 109 a complete fake made up just to confuse the Russians (and model plane builders)?

[tank152]

I get your point about RLM76, which like I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, shade changed towards the end of the war.

The rest makes no real sense.

Why would anyone have repainted something to confuse the Russians especially the AWM one, which was captured in the West!

[Werdna]

3 minutes ago, tank152 said:

The rest makes no real sense.

 

I think that is precisely the point that Jochen is making.

[tank152]

1 hour ago, Werdna said:

 

Makes no difference at all, but that wasn't the point I was making.  My only point is that unless the argument is that the G-6 in the AWM looks absolutely identical now to how it did when it rolled out of the factory/repair shop 75 years ago, then we have to accept that the paint - while it may be 'original' - is not in it's original colour/shade/condition.

 

 

No dispute on colour consistency (although that's probably a different discussion anyway).  But going back to my original point - the G-6 is a perfect guide to what an aircraft looks like after 75 years of fading, weathering, oxidisation, handling, storage, transportation, dismantling, examination, re-assembly and display, - not to mention combat service and general flying hours.  Here's the 'but' though - it 'may' not be a perfect guide to what it looked like 75 years ago.  Personally, I think there is an important difference to be considered there.  However, if anyone would like to put forward a proposition as to why the aircraft's appearance and condition would not have deteriorated at all over 75 years, then that would certainly be worth considering.

Well, apparently the paint on the said airframe matched up nicely along side the paint chips from the Monogram book which in turn match the ones in the Classic books. 😉🙂

I own both by the way.

I've also got a piece of wooden tail from a Bf109 G-10 that @antonio argudo kindly sent me and the paint on that matches the corresponding chips in those books. Obviously the passing of time hasn't altered the colours that much.

 

 

[Werdna]

7 minutes ago, tank152 said:

Well, apparently the paint on the said airframe matched up nicely along side the paint chips from the Monogram book which in turn match the ones in the Classic books. 😉🙂

I own both by the way.

 

Again, with respect, that's not the point I was making.  Either we accept that the condition of that aircraft is as fresh and faithful now to how it was 75 years ago - or we don't.  Personally, I don't see how it can be argued that it is.  I've no doubt you could find patches of paint on there which would match up to one colour chip or another, but that's a different discussion.  As Jochen points out, there would seem to be other patches of paint on there which do not correspond to any particular reference.  We are trying to have it both ways here.

[antonio argudo]

these are RLM 66 samples, the rectangular  from a Ju88 and the other from a bf109F frame windshield I just disassembled  last night which was sandwiched and had not seen light since 1942, the color on  both parts  is exactly the same shade 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by antonio argudo

[Antti_K]

Does anyone know whether the museum staff in Australia is going to make a "proper" research on the original colours? It would be interesting to hear their results. And hopefully they give the data in some proper colour system codes (like NCS or Munsell); not colour collection (like FS or RAL) codes.

 

Cheers,

Antti

[Jochen Barett]

2 hours ago, tank152 said:

I get your point about RLM76, which like I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, shade changed towards the end of the war.

The rest makes no real sense.

Why would anyone have repainted something to confuse the Russians especially the AWM one, which was captured in the West!

We can see three flavors of supposed RLM 76 ("regular", older light blueish on the lower cowling (who did it? Where did it come from?), "latest" "RLM 84" (greenished) and "78" on the MG131 cover), what is your explanation?

According to my "literature" RLM 76 changed just a little bit and "RLM 84" [shudder!] is some .., who knows what (material shortage, ageing, unidentified overspray or contamination, undocumented change) but none ist 78 like.

 

The claim we read before was 74/75/76 is 74/75/76 is /74/75/76 is /74/75/76 under any given circumstances (be it production or repair) and somebody has samples of 74, 75 , and 76 and they are very consistent, so what are the three shades of grey on the upperside of the wing? I see 74, dark (darkened? By mixture or mottling or ageing?) 75 and light 75 on the flap. What do you see?

 

"just to confuse the Russians" is a cold war phrase, allegedly found for the first time as a commentary line in the source code (well kept in the factory) for IBM main frame computers' operating system, assuming the Russians woud try to do reverse engineering on the executable images (elivered to the customers) of that code. And it describes unneccessary and confusing actions done with no real reason - and was used for not easily understood actions in other areas of (military) life later.

 

I see the RLM 66 samples and the rear part of the cockpit, so what is the LDV or Messcherschmitt-Zeichnung telling us about that moveable cover and the fixed part? Are they both 66? Or is the cover the fourth/fifth version of 76?

 

"The rest makes no real sense" is my claim. We know that we don't know for sure and our observations of artefacts and pictures contradict the smartest most official literature and citations thereof.

[tank152]

2 hours ago, Werdna said:

 

Again, with respect, that's not the point I was making.  Either we accept that the condition of that aircraft is as fresh and faithful now to how it was 75 years ago - or we don't.  Personally, I don't see how it can be argued that it is.  I've no doubt you could find patches of paint on there which would match up to one colour chip or another, but that's a different discussion.  As Jochen points out, there would seem to be other patches of paint on there which do not correspond to any particular reference.  We are trying to have it both ways here.

The more I read your responses the more I think that you're just trolling.

All you ever do is contradict and attempt to twist things round to suit yourself. Again you've not brought anything of worth to the discussion apart from "thinking out aloud" which as usual hasn't been able to be backed up with any sort of facts. 

This will be my last response to you, any of your posts and threads. 🙂

[Werdna]

1 hour ago, tank152 said:

The more I read your responses the more I think that you're just trolling.

All you ever do is contradict and attempt to twist things round to suit yourself. Again you've not brought anything of worth to the discussion apart from "thinking out aloud" which as usual hasn't been able to be backed up with any sort of facts. 

This will be my last response to you, any of your posts and threads. 🙂

 

Taking your ball away eh?  Others on here have been far tougher on you than I have.  You're free to reply or not, as you see fit, but you come across as very self-important, if you don't mind me saying.  The only 'twists and turns' on here have been from you.  If this is how you respond to reasoned discussion, then it's probably best that you do indeed take a step back.  

 

As for your comment on 'thinking aloud' - that comment was not even made on this thread - it was on the Fw190A-9 thread and I really don't see what the issue is.  If you are 'thinking aloud' then you are obviously speculating - so of course there is no evidence!  What a strange thing to say.

 

Trolling?  Absolutely not.  I am not 'contradicting' you - but I am challenging your argument (and it's not going well ).  This is, after all, a discussion forum.

[Mike]

Guys.  Yet again a colour discussion degenerates into a slanging match.  No surprises there.  Both of you need to take a moment to realise you're arguing about colour on the internet, and calm down.  There has already been one warning on this thread from Julien, so the next time we'll be dishing out free holidays to anyone that doesn't listen and carries on with the back and forth.  It's disappointing behaviour from a group of supposed grown-ups.

[Icedtea]

On 6/10/2021 at 10:58 PM, Antti_K said:

Does anyone know whether the museum staff in Australia is going to make a "proper" research on the original colours? It would be interesting to hear their results. And hopefully they give the data in some proper colour system codes (like NCS or Munsell); not colour collection (like FS or RAL) codes.

 

Cheers,

Antti

I think some research was done a while ago. I think it was published on Brett Greens "Hyperscale" website at some point?

 

[Icedtea]

On 6/10/2021 at 6:55 PM, Werdna said:

 

Not sure if that's the take-away from this discussion.  It certainly isn't what I was suggesting.  Fresh museum paint - and there have been some shocking examples - doesn't guarantee an authentic interpretation, but then neither, potentially, does 75 year old 'genuine' paint.  Especially on an a/c which had been through a rebuild facility where it presumably received repaired/repainted sections. 

 

If you are looking to model a 75 year old G-6 as it would look today, then the Aus G-6 would be an ideal guide.  It may, however, not be a perfect guide for a 'wartime' finish - unless you think it rolled out of the factory looking exactly like it does now.  The answer, as ever, is probably somewhere in the middle.  If anyone finds it, let me know  

No, my statement was in reference to the OP not the authenticity of colours restored v unrestored. As a general rule no one (of my acquaintance anyway) views restored airframes as anywhere near100% authentic. His argument seems to change as the thread progresses and for me at least this devalues the post. No offence meant.

I'll stick with 02 up to mid 41, black grey post 1941 lightening to a mid grey by late 44 and pick a shade any shade by wars end. New build, rebuild...factory, field, forest clearing or depot. Mixed or a new tin fresh from the warehouse or nicked from the russians etc etc. Short of having the actual airframe sitting in your backyard.....who knows. Arguments about post or preshading etc....Thats a matter for the individual tho I would note that some of these techniques borrow from other fields eg, art painting, in order to "fool the eye" and give the subject some depth and texture. Its like the 3 bears...some isnt enough, some is too much and some just nail it!  My antipodean 2c plus GST