Jump to content

mattlow

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    2,583
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

mattlow last won the day on July 22 2013

mattlow had the most liked content!

About mattlow

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 09/15/1965

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Devon, England

Recent Profile Visitors

785 profile views
  1. Yep, about three posts up.. Matt
  2. Excellent work... The 109 has come out really nicely. I like the idea of using less contrasting panel line washes... it's often overdone (to my taste). The stands add a new dimension.... this come s from Uschi...? Matt
  3. Many of Jerry's books were at the higher end of the cost spectrum when on general release (not saying they weren't worth every £/$). Now they seem to be the domain of rather high collector prices. So keep your eyes peeled for a bargain (I have picked up Eagle Editions/Classic books in charity shops for very reasonable prices). Otherwise, hope for reprints.. Matt
  4. Some of us are interested in the subject for its own sake, and not just to facilitate the assembly and accurate (hopefully) representation of the colours and finishes of a particular period. I found a really interesting thread over on 12 O'clock High which is just like one of our modelling discussions about colour... just that this concerns a real Me 163... http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=10115 So, in many ways we, as interested modellers, are actually working alongside the guys restoring the real aircraft (maybe somewhat ahead of them in some cases... ). .
  5. Vincent!! We had 249 replies and 6,842 views on this thread. You fell out with one person, I think the rest of us were more than happy with the material that was being presented.. the very fact you have access to primary sources is what made your contribution so useful.... You English is as good as many folk who were born and bred here... This s a big shame... Matt
  6. Please don't remove your contributions Vincent. I suppose getting to page 17 without a 'meltdown' was an achievement... I read most of Ullmann's Luftwaffe Colours 1935-1945 yesterday and am still reeling somewhat, especially from the detail and plethora of numeric designations of the lacquers and the lacquer groups some of your explanations above have been very useful in making sense of what they actually mean (which is why they're valuable stuff). If I come across anything else which I think is useful, I'll post it here. Maybe others will chip in. I hope you'll leave your contributions Vincent and I hope you continue to watch and maybe contribute Padraic. Matt
  7. I don't really agree. It is difficult for us to really debate as there's not really a structure, we're darting around as various aspects catch our attention. Back to the explanation, I think the main thing that you are premising your argument on is that paint was re-formulated 'late in the war'. Most of the paints we discuss aren't late in the war in terms of introduction (though of course the two in the original thread title are) and even in terms of 81/82 we're not sure of their origins, so they may not be as late as the term would suggest. As I think you said, the progenitors of these colours were possibly being developed for/on the Eastern Front for a couple of years..? I also think if you look at Vincent's responses to my barrage of questions, you'll see that he doesn't think 81/82 were formulated as a combo and relied upon RLM 76 as a base/primer coat (as did 74 and 75). I am not wedded to the notion of a combo 81/82, I merely suggested it was possible and would be very useful (Vincent's explanation seemed to place no barrier to the creation of 81/82 combo paints, even if there is no documentation showing they existed). EDIT: His sources appear to be two sets of painting instructions. "as to the source, it is the paint manufacturer's instructions that were delivered to Finland when stocks of RLM74,75 and 76 were purchased in 1943 to support the deliveries of the G2 and G6, as well as the instructions given with the stocks of RLM65 purchased in 1942 (? from memory)" and "The He-162 document states that metal fuselage parts are to be painted entirely in 7122.76 (logical) and then RLM82 on top of the 7122.76 then RLM81 on top of RLM82. The document gives no paint references for the 81 and 82, suggesting that only the hue is important to the RLM" Second quote is where Vincent is pretty much agreeing with your premise that 81/82 were not combo paints... end edit. I have no idea what either document is and haven't seen either soI suppose I am taking Vincent's comments at face value here (though I'd love to see the originals/transcripts). It therefore stands to reason that if 81 wasn't a combo paint and we see aircraft with a thin layer of 81 over bare metal your suggestion is entirely probable - why not, if you've got shiny aircraft that need dulling down before leaving the relative safety of a forest factory, 81 sans primer is better than nothing. If I got carried away along a certain line of thought it didn't mean your suggestion was discounted. Matt
  8. Thanks Vincent... I need to digest this and give you a break from my incessant questions...( and think of some more.. ) This is great stuff. Thanks Matt
  9. Useful... Just because it is one of the only 'higher number' colours we haven't mentioned, what about RLM 80. I sometimes wonder if it is to be more associated with 78 and 79 or with the 'green group' of (80) 81 and 82.. Do we know how it came about? was it 'designed' to complement 79 on uppersurfaces of tropical schemes? I hardly ever even think of RLM 72 and 73 but just thought I'd mention them for completeness. Did they have a special formulation due to their maritime application? Regarding your last post, is the 7140/7141 indicating the use as a finish suitable for wood?
  10. Aha! Thanks. But our friends RLM 81 and 82 would be no problemo as they are (in their recorded variety) always green or brown (violet).. so they could be produced as combo paints... I can really buy into the idea of 76 becoming more green/yellowish as the quality of the blue-grey pigment got worse... Thanks Vincent, I feel like I am actually learning some useful stuff here. Matt
  11. So finding a document mentioning 7122 .81 or 7122 .82 would be rather useful..
  12. I believe I have seen the images of Me 262s with a very thin spray of RLM 81 that does allow the putty in the panel lines to show through. That would suggest that 81 maybe was also a 'combo' paint (I like that term).. It would surely make sense to make any of the new primary camo colours 'combo' paint formulations for exactly the reasons you've mentioned Vincent (weight/time/resource use) why paint entire airframe in 76 if you can use the uppersurface camo colours without an undercoat as well.. I'd assume the formulation could be given any pigment you wished, so it'd merely be a case of applying the RLM 81/82 pigmentation to the 'passivizing components´╗┐' and you have uppersurface 'combo' paint. I suspect you may tell us it wasn't quite that straightforward? Matt
  13. There's a series of Signal magazine photos of one of the Bf 109G production lines where all the aircraft are painted in a light blue colour (I always thought it looked more like RLM 65 but that could be due to age of photos etc). The use of 76 as a primer answers the overall application of the colour which had in the past seemed a little illogical. That would also explain (as we'd touched on way back - Gazzas I believe) the overall 76 airframes coming out of Mtt after they lost their paint shop. I can't get to my books at the moment, but I'm sure there's a two part number reference for RLM colours. If I recall half refers to the pigment and the other (I suppose) to whether it was a 'primer' or non-'primer' I suppose it may also have indicated whether it was suitable for 'priming' metal or wood. Case in point I recall is RLM 99 which could have been the red oxide colour or a green hue or others as the 99 referred to the priming quality, not the colour. Am I horribly wrong there? Matt
  14. So may I ask (we know from what you said earlier that RLM 76 moved from a finishing paint to a primer paint) is there any evidence that 81 and 82 were of a similar 'multi-purpose' composition? Matt
  15. I'm not sure lighting would explain the presence of a green tinged RLM 66 but in close proximity to what we'd call standard RLM 66. I think there's clearly a colour difference, it is seen in Me 163 as well (some photos somewhere). A preservative... well, it'd have to have been sprayed very carefully to avoid getting over other parts and as Vincent says, it has been found on components not subject to post war treatments. To be honest, I don't any problem with the idea that there was a change in the appearance of RLM 66 at some late point in the war... why not? We're happy that 76 changed - even if we're not in agreement as to what caused that change.
×
×
  • Create New...