Jump to content

WWII VVS Colours


timbo33

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I'm building an ICM LaGG-3 for our club's 'Winter' theme for SMW and I'm struggling with paint sources. The Paint call-outs are for Modelmaster paints, which I thought MDC are now importing but I couldn't fiund anything on their website - only Gunze Sangyo.

I need to match 'Field Green' which is called out as MM 1712

I prefer to use acrylics and the only Russian VVS Colours I know of specifically are WEM enamels.

Any clues anyone? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Potential can of worms here ;) The WEM VVS colors are supposedly (I dont use enamels so have no first hand knowledge) faithful matches for the colors as published in Erik Pilawskii (Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1942-1945), unfortunately, his work as been rather heavily discounted by other researchers. So ...

There are some acrylic paints (AKAN) from Russia, Linden Hill in the US has them, don't know about a source in the UK. I built a Toko 1/72 LaGG 3 a couple of years ago (pre AKAN) as one based in the Leningrad area, Winter 1941-42 and used PollyScale's USSR Topside Green and Tamiya NATO Black for the upper surfaces. The PollyScale color is too light, almost a pale sage green, a darker green with some brownish-yellow tint (how is that for precise?) perhaps RLM 71 would be closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup it's an absolute can of worms. I built an Il-2 earlier this year and my head was left spinning by researching the colours.

As has been said above.... Erik Pilawski's work has been the source for most VVS colour matches, although those in the know reckon his info is heavily flawed and paints matched to his work aren't accurate.

Apparently there was a book made in the USSR in the late 40's that contains official colour swatches for the various VVS colours. However, from what I read there's only two known examples of this book still knocking around and they are held in museum collections in Russia. Also, being made after the war there is question as to how well the represent wartime colours - as we know at least some of the VVS colours changed over the course of the war.

There are no reliable sources for wartime VVS colours. Colour photographs from the period are practically non-existant, and of course even if you did find period colour photographs the accuracy of the colour reproduction in that photograph is very much open to question!

It's known that quality control suffered quite a bit in Soviet factories in the rush to produce as much as possible to throw back the Germans - so it's not at all unreasonable to think there was significant variation in the standard of paint being used as well. I doubt there was much fuss over making sure every batch of paint exactly matched the official shade!

The bottom line is you can paint models of WW2 VVS aircraft pretty much any shade of the official colours you want and NOBODY can prove you right or wrong unless they have a time machine :)

As for AMT-4 - I used Tamiya XF-5 Flat Green with a drop or two of XF-1 Flat Black added to darken it slightly.

Cheers,

Nick

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I'm building an ICM LaGG-3 for our club's 'Winter' theme for SMW and I'm struggling with paint sources. The Paint call-outs are for Modelmaster paints, which I thought MDC are now importing but I couldn't fiund anything on their website - only Gunze Sangyo.

I need to match 'Field Green' which is called out as MM 1712

I prefer to use acrylics and the only Russian VVS Colours I know of specifically are WEM enamels.

Any clues anyone? :confused:

Look on sovietwarplanes.com, and for an idea about the colours, here is a table with colour chips

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/color-table.html

greens - http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/humbrol/greens.htm

light blues - http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/hum...light-blues.htm

The paint matched are humbrol enamels, most colours not in their acrylic range though.

general painting guide http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/colors.html well worth the time to read.

Specific to the LaGG3 they seem to have been finished inside in aluminum paint, note the side wall, rather than the later standard of A-14 'steel gray' also note the pale insturment panel colour.

coc1rr.jpg

here's the LaGG3 page, there are more cockpit pics here.

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/lagg3/lagg3.html

the AKAN paints are available from Armory from the Ukraine.

http://armory.in.ua/index.php?cPath=41_259_992_996

That's where I got mine. They are quite dark, and need lightening a bit for scale effect.

But if you don't want to go crazy and pretty good will do using say tamiya paint....

Nick's mix for AMT-4 is pretty good , XF-5 is only little too pale. rather than black, you could add a bit of red-brown, which will darken and make the green a little more olive, look at the green s page.

for the pale blue you can use XF-23 with about 10% bit of bright blue (like xf-8 or x-4) added. there is a mix that adds a bit of white as well, look at the light blues page for more info

nato black would be a good match for a scale black. But do have a look at the links above, hope not an information overload.

Also worth having a trawl through the sovietwarplanes forum, lots of info there, or join the forum, lots of helpful member like here.

HTH

T

PS - Tim, this image is good representation of the colours, it's a piece of a LaGG3 preserved in Finland

lagg3-fus-fin.jpg

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

Hi,

For AMT-4 Green, a relatively safe bet is using any FS34151 you like, the lighter the better.

As per Pilawskii's work, my impression is that the most contested data regards the dates of introduction of the different paints and schemes, like the "All Grey" scheme, and his interpretation on some oddities such as "Factory", and "tractor" Greens, but as mainstream colours are concerned, the matches he gives look pretty much like any other source, including the Russian ones.

Fernando

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Colors of the Falcons" quote FS24151 as well (Yellowish Green Lacquer), and with a few exceptions it is a well regarded reference for VVS colours.

Cheers

Den

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fernando and all,

While I would agree with your statement in general, in some cases it goes farther than that. I was just finishing an early MiG-3 when a lot of the Russian materials were making significant first appearances on modeling boards outside of Russia and eastern Europe. Pilawski's AII colors (AII green and AII underside blue in particular) are more than a little off compared to all the new- to Westerners- information. Having done a review of the existing information and acquired a copy of Pilawski's book, it stung more than a little to finish my MiG, only to find that it is rather marginally similar to the newest color information at best. You may take this last statement with a little "salt," since I do try to be as precise as possible when painting and finishing specific aircraft; your mileage may vary as they say.

I use solvent-based paints, so unless a modeler has access to the AKAN line of acrylics, making use of the paint chips now shown on the Soviet Warplanes site mentioned above and mixing from there will get one into the neighborhood of the correct colors.

Happy modeling, Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

For AMT-4 Green, a relatively safe bet is using any FS34151 you like, the lighter the better.

As per Pilawskii's work, my impression is that the most contested data regards the dates of introduction of the different paints and schemes, like the "All Grey" scheme, and his interpretation on some oddities such as "Factory", and "tractor" Greens, but as mainstream colours are concerned, the matches he gives look pretty much like any other source, including the Russian ones.

Fernando

HI Fernando

in short, no. Most of Pilawskii's matches are horrible, bright blue AMT-7, bright acight acidic lime green for AMT-4.

and his interpretation on some oddities such as "Factory", and "tractor" Greens
these don't exist.....

as an example, here's his LATEST book cover.

MiGCover.jpg

Still with the lurid blue and bright green... compare to the colour charts linked in my previous post.

for anyone else interested, read this thread http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1071.0

in particular post #18 note SAFFC = 'Soviet Air force Fighter Colours', EP first major book.

Let me start with something constructive, something that is relevant and probably unknown to the most of those who are following this dispute – what Russian experts see as SAFFC’s major problems:

Problem No 1:

Those who are familiar with the subject are saying that SAFFC creates a picture of totally unregulated field: NKAP (ministry of Aviation Production) issued only “recommendations”, factories could create there own schemes or use paints they just “prefer”. Workers could paint planes how they wanted and with anything that was handy. Girls could invent their own camouflage schemes, factories competed to create more colorful schemes. Camouflage schemes and even the type of national markings were just more “popular” at certain times – something like wartime fashion.

Those same people, who are familiar with the subject, are saying that the camouflage and the colouring were regulated. NKAP and VVS High Command issued directives and orders that were mandatory. Planes were accepted by military commissions and those did pay attention how planes were painted. Paint production was standardized and their use was clearly defined in technical documentation.

Problem No 2:

Russian researchers who worked in archives have many doubts about author’s work in those archives. For example, some of the documents listed in “Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours” simply don’t exist.

So, the dispute is not really about the shade of any particular colour (how acidic is Aii Green or how dark is AKAN’s AMT-11). It’s about more fundamental things - the treatment of official documents and the real sources.

There has been a lot written about the work of EP, but in the main he just spits his dummy out if someone if someone disagree's with him. if you don't believe me read this

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/1948/19...m_Nakrasok.html

regardings the 1948 paint catalog. It also is an excellent example of his writing 'style' which I personally find very tiresome to read.

shades of Sir Humphrey... see the first paragraph here to see what i mean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_Appleby

cheers

T

Edited by Troy Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fernando,

From personal experience, it is impossible to say anything that could remotely be interpreted as favourable about any part of Pilawki's work without being shouted down and told to go away and never visit Russian modelling sites again. Certain of his attackers have no room for anything other than repetitive mindless vituperation.

I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong about the colours (although he is hardly the first or only researcher to mention, for example, Tractor/Factory green) but the Stalinist squashing of opposing views is ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks to all those of you who've replied in so short a time!! I was aware of the lack of reliable evidence about WWII VVS colours and there is certainly a huge variety of colours seen on models of wartime aircraft.

I certainly subscribe to the 'The Germans will be here in 30 minutes what does it matter what colour we paint it as long as it flies' theory in relation to the autumn of 1941 but I think that by the Spring of 1942 when they'd relocated the factories East of the Urals that there would probably have been a degree of standardisation so I tend to agree with the quote in Troy's post.

I'm also acutely aware that there were differences in paint colours between US Manufacturers where there wern't any bombers disrupting manufacture or supply so it's perfectly reasonable that there would be local variations in War-torn USSR. However, we've got to start somewhere and I think the bit of LaGG wing in Troy's post is the best bit of evidence I've seen.

I must admit that the green depicted there is a lot errmmm...greener than the colour used in most VVS profiles, which are almost Pea Green or pale Olive Green.

as it is I've signed up for an account on The Armory so I'll be getting my supply of Arkan paints in a couple of weeks hopefully!!! :thumbsup:

PS - What about the underside Blue???

Edited by timbo33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks to all those of you who've replied in so short a time!! I was aware of the lack of reliable evidence about WWII VVS colours and there is certainly a huge variety of colours seen on models of wartime aircraft.

There is reliable evidence now, but mixed in with of the effects of misinformation, much generated by SAFFC to be honest!

What I have done is pointed you in the direction of current thinking on the subject, much due to the massive expansion of the internet and Russian's contributing to English language sites, with far more hard information available.

I certainly subscribe to the 'The Germans will be here in 30 minutes what does it matter what colour we paint it as long as it flies' theory in relation to the autumn of 1941 but I think that by the Spring of 1942 when they'd relocated the factories East of the Urals that there would probably have been a degree of standardisation so I tend to agree with the quote in Troy's post.

Yep, they relocated factories, so they would relocate the paint shop and paint as well. I'm sure there was some confusion and 'get it done' but this was a country that had just been through years of Stalin's purges, where you got locked up in the gulag or shot for not towing the line!

I'm also acutely aware that there were differences in paint colours between US Manufacturers where there wern't any bombers disrupting manufacture or supply so it's perfectly reasonable that there would be local variations in War-torn USSR. However, we've got to start somewhere and I think the bit of LaGG wing in Troy's post is the best bit of evidence I've seen.

There are some other bits of Soviet planes in Finland as well, have a google about, and you should find pics of more bits.

I must admit that the green depicted there is a lot errmmm...greener than the colour used in most VVS profiles, which are almost Pea Green or pale Olive Green.

Ah, yes, profiles. By their very nature, and interpretation, and why i like to see the photos the profile is drawn from. A lot of profiles have been influenced by Pilawskii's SAFFC book, which is full of pretty profiles in lurid colours, and lot just by misinformation, or repitition in incorrect information like brown/green VVS uper on fighter and Il-2, which is just wrong.

Tim, I put this link above, general painting guide http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/colors.html well worth the time to read.

because it's the 'best informed in one place' guide to VVS camo I know of on the web. the section you want for your LaGG3 is this one http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/1941-43/1941-43.html

The big difference between Massimo's Mig3 and Sovietwarplanes site, and Pilawskii, is he mig3/Sovitewarplanes show you their sources and reasoning.

You can find scans of SAAFFC online if you look, (or order inter library loan) but for the £25+ it sells for it's essentially useless UNLESS you already know about the subject, and even then it's just a collection of photos with some useful and some wrong information written in a turgid writing style.

Not only is much of the book wrong, he evens rubbish things that are documented, like the use of sliver paint in VVS makings, look at the P-39 Airacobra they have http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/phot...koski/index.htm in unrestored original paint.

What i suggest is read through the material available, also look on ARC forum, there was/is a huge thread on VVS colours, and make your own mind up regarding the Pilawskii controvery, that's all i have done. I have emailed Massimo of Sovietwarplanes and he's always been courteous and helpful.

Pilawskii come across as dogmatic and inflexible.

as it is I've signed up for an account on The Armory so I'll be getting my supply of Arkan paints in a couple of weeks hopefully!!! :thumbsup:

I have found Armory to be very good, they send as a letter packet, i usually order a kit as well and it turns up with about 30 stamps on it in under 2 weeks.

PS - What about the underside Blue???

what, as in a paint match? or what colour? well, I gave you a rough mix for AMT-7 in Tamiya above, and the chunk of Lagg3 i posted a pic of is part of the fuselage, not wing.

Note the little picture below it, showing the postion on the fuselage the segment came from , and the bit of AMT-7 blue paint as well, in the bottom left of the chunk. Start with tamiya xf-23 and add blue and white as you need. Or just get the AKAN colour.... you will need to lighten it though for a scale match though, the AKAN paints are all dark, ie good exact matches, too dark for model use straight out the pot.

HTH

T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fernando,

From personal experience, it is impossible to say anything that could remotely be interpreted as favourable about any part of Pilawki's work without being shouted down and told to go away and never visit Russian modelling sites again. Certain of his attackers have no room for anything other than repetitive mindless vituperation.

I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong about the colours (although he is hardly the first or only researcher to mention, for example, Tractor/Factory green) but the Stalinist squashing of opposing views is ugly.

Frankly, Graham, what exactly is your agenda here (and on Massimo's forum)?

Is translating the Russian side of research and original documents and then enduring the abuse from the EP and "Pilawsky apologists" counting as repetitive mindless vituperation?

I find it very insulting and really I thought better of you.

But live and learn.

Vedran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, all,

Not wishing to be taken as a "EP apologist" or even as having the pretence of being a researcher (just an armchair historian), but a modeller who cares about the authenticity of the colours and colours schemes inthe models he makes (sometimes I think that endorses me with a low commission in the Colour Police) let me please humbly present some considerations.

Let me explain that here I am only concerned in the actual colours "proposed", not in the timeframes in which they or the different schemes were introduced, or the fabled existence of "Tractor" and "Factory" greens, but the colours themselves.

I have delved into the webpage scalewiki.ru and got a list of colours titled (as long as Western characters allow me, please be patient) something like "OKpaCKa BBC CCCP 1930-1950 roAbl". I have checked the FS equivalences proposed with those at the infamous SAFFC. This is the result (I use the "matt" prefix "3-"):

- AII Green, new: both FS34528. "OKpaCKa", also 34095 (substantially different)

- AII Green, faded: both 34151.

- AII light blue, new: both 35466, "OKpaCKa", also 35526 (substantially different)

- AII Light Blue, faded: both 35550

- AMT-4 Dark Green: both 34151, "OKpaCKa", also 34102 (probably small difference) and 34062 (subtantially different)

- AMT-7 Underside Blue: SAFFC 35550, "OKpaCKa" 35466 (the colour proposed by SAFFC as AII Blue "new")

So far, differences in the first choice doesn't look substantial.

If considering the "Grey Scheme", differences are substantia, however.

- AMT- 11: SAFFC 36375, "OKpaCKa" 26190 (seemingly doesn't exist) or 36187 (markedly different and close to WEMM's interpretation of AMT-12!)

- AMT-12: SAFFC 36081, "OKpaCKA" "27003" (doesn´t exist)

My preliminary conclusion is that there doesn't seem to be a radical difference in both lists regarding the "Green/Black" scheme, but there is a quite substantial one in the "Grey" one.

Just food for thought.

FErnando

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what, as in a paint match? or what colour? well, I gave you a rough mix for AMT-7 in Tamiya above, and the chunk of Lagg3 i posted a pic of is part of the fuselage, not wing.

Note the little picture below it, showing the postion on the fuselage the segment came from , and the bit of AMT-7 blue paint as well, in the bottom left of the chunk. Start with tamiya xf-23 and add blue and white as you need. Or just get the AKAN colour.... you will need to lighten it though for a scale match though, the AKAN paints are all dark, ie good exact matches, too dark for model use straight out the pot.

HTH

T

Hadn't noticed that - yes looks pretty much like Faded AMT-7. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... From personal experience, it is impossible to say anything that could remotely be interpreted as favourable about any part of Pilawki's work without being shouted down and told to go away and never visit Russian modelling sites again...

Hi!

I disagree. From personal experience I can say that my favourable mentions of Pilawskii (and his book) mostly go unnoticed and/or uncommented.

Regards,

Kari

Edited by Kari Lumppio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi

Eric Pilawski's book seems fine as another one to add to the mix. He does say in the text he didn't think the printing process works well with the greens and blues but his FS quotes pretty much match the few listed in the Vahlamov and Orlov Model Hobby articles posted online (I can't read Russian/Cyrillic but the numbers are the same), and the Jiri Hornat/Bob Migliardi book.

Erics book also contains his reasoning behind disagreeing with V and O on AMT blue - take that or leave it - man shows his reasoning. Also the dispute on the 1948 Albom is covered and reasoned.

His take on the early blues does agree reasonably with the Hornat book, running the various FS numbers through the FS site. Hornat does not cover AII colours but his "Grass Green" A-19F is the same shade - this type of paint is apparently unlikely but the sade is not argued.

His book might not be perfect if you just take the profiles as gospel. Website ditto. I thought he was exploring the variations in schemes.

I also thought he stated there were factory records indicating the paints used on varous batches of a/c - presumably quantities ordered/consumed. Unless this is mistaken or fictional I'd think that reasoning is - well, reasonable. Using 400l of sand, 300l brown and 300l light blue (plus whatever markings, stencilling and interiors), should be indicative of that disputed South Front scheme?

Honat also shows and discusses some photos where the schemes (black and white interpretations, anyway), manifestly do not match the approved schemes.

I would very much like to see a published version of the V and O work in English so I could decide better.

Theres a guy in the local club who is adamant that British Tanks were all painted in Quartermaster-approved colours and in formal Army schemes. I think we're here again.

My ignorant 2 penn'orth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, round and round we go again.

To quote the fabulous Michelle from the Resistance: I shall say this only once:

There was no southern front scheme.

There was no fighter or attack aircraft upper two color scheme of two greens or green and brown.

There was no freehand camo artist named Bukhanova (you westerners are such romantics). There were official patterns and they were used (the right fuselage side varied from Zavod to Zavod, because it wasn't specified in diagrams).

My rough translation of Vakhlamov&Orlov floats around, but that's unimportant, important are the dates and official colour diagrams shown in that booklet that can be found on ARC and sovietwarplanes forums and most importantly scalemodels.ru.

I hope I'll see the printed English version of Vakhlamov&Orlov in my lifetime, but the information is available online in English right now, so there's no need to wait.

There are facsimiles of official orders, official color diagrams, maintenance and repair manuals, the 1948 (not NKVD and not KGB book) and there are preserved colour standards specimens (etalons). But that's just not good enough for people who like to interpret b/w image scans.

Funnily enough, one RAF museum booklet is enough for RAF camo. But all above is not good enough for VVS.

Well, we're all free to enjoy our hobby our own way.

Happy modeling,

Vedran

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

I disagree. From personal experience I can say that my favourable mentions of Pilawskii (and his book) mostly go unnoticed and/or uncommented.

Regards,

Kari

Hi, Kari,

I have been visiting Massimo's page, and in some part of his analysis he shows the well known picture of the Yak rudder and captions:"A Yak-9 tail in excellent condition is shown at Tikkakoski museum. A comparison with FS catalogue gives: darker grey FS 35042, lighter FS 36118. (cit. K. Lumppio)".

In the picture the colours look nothing like that (35042 is the Sea Blue used by the US Navy, and 36118 is Gunship Grey, used in as the darkest element in early F-16s schemes, and usually described as very similar to British Extra Dark Sea Grey, i.e.: both extremely dark colours). I cannot give FS matches for the colours showing in the picture but, if hard pressed, I would say they look much like... WEMM's renditions of AMT greys! which of course bear little resemblance to the FS colours cited!

My question is: did you really make the matches? If so, based on what? (very respectfully, mate, truly)

Fernando

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather stay out of this but as you asked from me.

My question is: did you really make the matches? If so, based on what? (very respectfully, mate, truly)

Massimo has probably quoted from my posting in red.models.scale made in 1998!

No, I did not made the Yak-9 grey FS comparsions myself. I posted about this couple of years ago at ARC forum ( http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air...5255&st=100 , post #112)

...

I cannot give FS matches for the colours showing in the picture but, if hard pressed, I would say they look much like... WEMM's renditions of AMT greys! which of course bear little resemblance to the FS colours cited!

I think the photo below describes best the situation with the WEM paints and AMT samples:

AMT%2520greys%2520WEM%2520et%2520Humbrols.jpg

This is what I wrote about year ago at ARC of the greys on Tikkakoski Yak:

"Jak-9 fin and rudder at Tikkakoski and colours.

The right thing to do would be measuring the colours with a colorimeter. Recording the average and also the deviation. Also the hobby etc paints meant to represent the originals should be measured. Only after this could one say something new about correctness of the various FS samples etc and even how close the artifact colours are to etalons (Albom Nakrasok).

Problem is that I do not have a colorimeter and those cost several hundred Euros.

The FS comparisons to Tikkakoski Jak-9 were not made by me.

I have taken the Humbrol (79&32) and WEM "AMT-11" & "-12" samples against the artifact and there are places on the surface which would support both choices. Overall my preference would still be on Humbrols. The look of the original piece is that of partially resprayed (there is even a patch of green on it!) not badly suffered. In my opinion."

( http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air...5255&st=460 , post #470)

Kari

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Kari, it was not my intention to draw you into the line of fire.

Remember I can only look at the photo of the artifacts as they were uploaded, but, as they are not contested by any party, but used to advance their opinions, I take them for granted.

With such a (poor) piece of evidence, I can (however) calmly say that 35042 and 36118 do not look in any way matches to the thing I am seeing (the Jak-9 rudder).

IMHO, the colour swatches in the publication (is that the fabled "Alboom"?) as shown in your post cannot be taken as examples... the look of the photo is way too dark on the whole, for instance the AMT-4 (which is peacefully accepted as similar to 34151-34102, and shown clearly on the picture of the piece of LaGG-3 (?) fuselage) colour swatch is shown much darker and even the white paper is dark and distorted. Of course I am talking about the picture in the post "as is", and not about the printed example, which I have not seen. The sample of WEMM "AMT-11" is way different from the colour itself (much bluer, possibly darker). The same can be said of the sample of "AMT-12".

All the above are, of course, nothing more than personal impressions, but I am really eager for exchanging ideas. Please, stay with me.

Fernando

PD: Humbro 79 is the old equivalent for... Extra Dark Sea Grey? and 32 I think it is 36081, almost for sure... dark and low contrast combo...

Edited by Fernando
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fernando,

IMHO the problem is you are treating all sources equally. Every piece of info you can find in books or on the web. You should think about the various sources and use some logic and common sense!

Pilawskii’s “research” largely consists of wild guesses, assumptions, misconceptions - it’s mostly made up. There could be come relevant information, but how can you tell what is relevant if he hides his sources? Pilawskii did not specify where (or how) he got his FS equivalents for AMT-11 and AMT-12; maybe from the same Yak-9 rudder in Tikkakoski museum, maybe from the ghost Yak-3 in Krakow museum or maybe he suck them from his thumb.

“Colors of the Falcons” is based both on relevant Russian texts and on Pilawskii’s SAFFC. Some of Pilawskii’s errors found their way into the Colors. If you see that something is the same in both books you can’t use that as a proof for Pilawskii’s “research”.

B/W photos are not a reliable source if you are looking for colours. 50-60 years old colour photos are only marginally better. Just think how easy is to change contrast, hue etc in Photoshop and that most published photos are doctored.

Museum exhibits would be reliable if their history was known. Yak-9 ruder was repainted – there are 3-4 grays, not two, the way how the red star is painted is strange (white first, red on top of it). The question is when it was repainted – during the war by Soviets or after the war by Finns? Is the lower layer factory paint or there are more layers?

Albom Nakrasok is an official document. It has its own problems: 1948, three years after WWII, chips are small (how representative is half square inch for hundreds of tons of paint produced). Still, Albom is the most relevant representation of Soviet colours.

If I were you, I would use Akan paints (they are based on 1948 Albom) and adjust/lighten them for scale effect, for fading, for fun, etc…

Happy modeling! B)

KL

Edited by K_L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

IMHO, the colour swatches in the publication (is that the fabled "Alboom"?) as shown in your post cannot be taken as examples... the look of the photo is way too dark on the whole

...

I simply do not get this. Yes that is the Albom Nakrasok page. The samples are painted on genuine AMT laquers! "Cannot be taken as examples !!!". As far as I am concerned You are entirely free to come up with better examples then.

Also the Humbrol and WEM samples are genuine paints sprayed on white cardboard.

Everything in the photo is like it was in real life. It is not photo manipulation or digital montage. I have not made any photo corrections (but added the texts, though). If the photo and lighting quality is lacking I can take full responsibility of that. It is photo I have taken personally at my bedroom and yes the photo is somewhat dark. Sun was not fully co-operating April 24th, 2005.

...the white paper is dark and distorted. Of course I am talking about the picture in the post "as is", and not about the printed example, which I have not seen. The sample of WEMM "AMT-11" is way different from the colour itself (much bluer, possibly darker). The same can be said of the sample of "AMT-12".

All the above are, of course, nothing more than personal impressions, but I am really eager for exchanging ideas. Please, stay with me.

Fernando

It seems you have swallowed EPs Nakrasok review with hook and sink. The Albom Nakrasok pages are NOT WHITE PAPER!. It has come out yellow from factory - it is yellow toned paper. No sample on the book is printed, I do not understand what you are talking about. There is one wrinkle in the photo but should you see the original book some day you would know that it is not distorted. Some minds seem to be, though.

Like I wrote above the WEM sample on the photo is the real thing. Taken straight out of the tin only diluted for airbrush use. Sprays beautifully, by the way.

I do not know you Fernando but I do have some doubts of your sincerity for dragging me into this discussion. Next time do some reading around forums before doing that, please. With open mind.

Kari

Edited by Kari Lumppio
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...