mattlow

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

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... ). .

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

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

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

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

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?

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

So finding a document mentioning 7122 .81 or 7122 .82 would be rather useful..

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

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

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

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.

Totally agree. That's why I sort of suggested looking at the factories. supply chains/logistics instead of (for a while at least) trying to decipher similar colours from B/W photos... What appears chaotic may well not be at all. There could be logic that we just aren't looking for properly. Your approach moves us in that direction. Yes, it is VERY clear... Apologies for the following if it is 'clumsy', but is this all linked to the move to making some of these 'colours' also function as primers? You also said earlier that RLM 76 was formulated (re-formulated?) as a primer. That makes sense to combine camo and primer into one.. I assume RLM 66 is a similar case? Proscribed colour for cockpit interiors that could also be used as a primer. Could this also be something that RLM 81/82 fulfilled...? You also say that the primer for metals and wood are different (sounds logical enough) does that mean that when we see RLM 76 used on wooden parts that this is eaihter a different formulation than used on the metal surfaces or that there is another primer layer beneath? I'm not inferring you definitely know, merely an ask for your thoughts. Thanks for your continued contribution Vincent. Matt EDIT: I note on the He 162 photo that the grey RLM66 is mostly on wooden components, while the green RLM66 looks limited to the core airframe components..

Vincent, that's interesting and I'd never really thought about it to that extent. So two questions: 1. Would there have been 'strategic' stockpiles of paints held somewhere else? I have little to no knowledge of the industry (happy for links to anything available) and how it produced the paints and stored them. I doubt that 1940s Germany had a 'just in time' system like many manufacturers do now (we see lots of images, post war of piles of specific aircraft components stockpiled for use; 2. We all say 'stocks' as translated from the relevant document, however, is the word stock(s) a proper translation? Does it actually mean something else in the original German? The gist must have been 'don't waste that RLM 70/71 that we have - make sure it is used.... If we know specific aircraft that had 70/71 (or 'variations of 76/ 81,82) on them and when they were built and where surely we can map this paint and possibly relate that to the locations of the manufacturers.. If I had that data I'd plug it all into a Geographic Information System and see what patterns were revealed.... Matt EDIT. Does anyone have lists of the manufacturers/sub-contractors/paint manufacturers/engine (engines were supplied with their cowls and were usually pre-painted) manufacturers and their locations?