Late War RLM usage of 81/82, etc.

[Guest Vincent]

Removed contribution

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Vincent/MDC

[Guest Vincent]

Removed contribution

Edited February 2, 2019 by Vincent/MDC

[anj4de]

When was that picture of the TA152 cockpit taken? I remember reading and seeing pictures about a part restauration/stabilisation that took part on it years ago...part of it was to replace a broken instrument panel with a newly build one...Is it that green one?

 

cheers

Uwe

Edited January 31, 2019 by anj4de

[mattlow]

1 hour ago, Vincent/MDC said:

might not be the only reason but i feel we need to think like ressource planners rather than modellers on this issue

 

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.

 

52 minutes ago, Vincent/MDC said:

have a look at this - do you see the green 66 versus the grey 66 of the instrument panel ?

 

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..

Edited January 30, 2019 by mattlow

[Padraic Conway]

13 hours ago, Vincent/MDC said:

 

 

of course, paint manufactured HAD to be used, simply from the perspective that it used up raw material but i'm not that convinced that the available quantities alone explain why He-162 wings got painted in an outdated bomber color. It is way  more likely to be a formulation issue, in the lines of "the contractor for wooden wings is familiar with the formulation for wood in 70 hue, let's order more of it for the 162 rather than wait for formulation in 81 to be delivered to them"

 

might not be the only reason but i feel we need to think like ressource planners rather than modellers on this issue

 

 

 

I don't see how 'it's way more likely to be a formulation issue'  - you need to provide some evidence for that assertion.

 

You also seem to be suggesting that the contractors were given special dispensation to continue to use the old colours (so more 70/71 was specially ordered for them?) because they were unfamiliar with the formulation for RLM81? That seems very unlikely in late-war Germany, where considerable effort was expended in ensuring that production was not allowed to be interrupted for any reason. I've just finished reading a review of Panther tanks on the Eastern Front that's an armour modellers nightmare! Ausf As with turret fittings from earlier and later versions on the same chassis. The manufacturers used what they had to hand at the time.

 

Remember also that the RLM had specifically ordered that the old colours were not to be used after existing stocks had been exhausted.  

 

The evidence we have is that the wings were painted in both the 'old' colours and the 'new' ones. It seems to me to be entirely reasonable to propose that that old paint was used first, then newer paint (colours) when that was exhausted.

 

Sorry Vincent, but Occam's razor applies here - the simplest explanation for a given situation (and that requiring the least speculation and the fewest assumptions) is the most likely to be correct.

 

Padraic

 

[Troy Molitor]

Jumping in here for the sake of keeping this topic progressing forward.  I’d like to suggest the following.  

 

One of the pictures posted above is the cockpit of W.Nr 120222.  The tail is actually from W.Nr. 120222 which they switched around post war on multiple He-162’s for the ease of shipping them back to the U.K and the states.   

 

The picture presented is the National Air and Space museums He 162.  The suggestion of a green RLM 66 is credible.  I would like to make another suggestive comment however.  This aircraft  was on a tour throughout the USA on a war bond tour.  The wings were sawn off for transportation.  The aircraft has been painted several times over the last 70 plus years.  Case in point the side engine cowling has neat strips of incorrect RLM 76 which were never on the original Heinkel in the first place.  The RLM  76’ish paint was applied to the side cowling.  Totally inaccurate.  

 

Back to my suggestive reasoning for the green RLM inside the cockpit has more to do with NASM continuous static preservation than realizing there were different manufacturers applying different shades off RLM 66 involved.  The corrosion prevention technologies are fairly advanced these days.  This to me would be way more important to keep under control on a 70+ year old aircraft.  Hardly anyone ever gets to see the cockpit up close.  Do you ever notice this?  Some of the smaller bits are actually stored inside the cockpit not to lose anything.  I beleive what we’re seeing is actually more to  do with a preventive spray on metal surfaces rather than a factory deviation in color.  (Granted my humble opinion here only ). The metal skin is sprayed with Dynatrol which is an amber brownish color which is applied on all the wet areas of modern aircraft.  Ive been actively involved in commercial aviation my entire life.  Every Airbus and every Boeing aircraft in service today has this Dynatrol applied to the wet areas from the fuselage water line down.  The entire wheel bay areas are nicely coated in this stuff.   Corrosion prevention Gent’s.  I suggest this as a my hypothesis why?  Between the pictures you can see the severely corroded fuselage cockpit lip panel on the Ta-152 and yet the He 162 also has similar two tone color variance in the RLM 66. I agree to there being a two tone variations in color but the main instrument panel on the He-162 is a nice plywood and the side cockpit horizontal panel in the Ta 152 also appears to be a plywood laminate of some sort.  Dynatrol wouldn’t be applied to a wooden surface as its oil based and it would soak into the wood causing further delamination and early decay to the wooden surfaces.   If I had a 70+ year old Luftwaffe aircraft in my collection (many sat outside more years post war) I would want to preserve the skin areas to stop any corrosion from eating away at my little He-162 or Ta 152 before it hit its glorious rotation in the restoration line up.   

 

Just an idea to think about. A lot of activity has gone on in the 70 years these birds have been under someone’s care.  

[Troy Molitor]

Brother D.  

 

That was too funny.  I found the holy grail of pictures supporting my splinter camoflage unicorn He 162.  .  pm me and we will chat.   

 

Troy. 

[Guest Vincent]

On 1/31/2019 at 3:27 PM, Troy Molitor said:

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Vincent/MDC

[Padraic Conway]

1 hour ago, Troy Molitor said:

 

 

Back to my suggestive reasoning for the green RLM inside the cockpit has more to do with NASM continuous static preservation than realizing there were different manufacturers applying different shades off RLM 66 involved.  The corrosion prevention technologies are fairly advanced these days.  This to me would be way more important to keep under control on a 70+ year old aircraft.  Hardly anyone ever gets to see the cockpit up close.  Do you ever notice this?  Some of the smaller bits are actually stored inside the cockpit not to lose anything.  I beleive what we’re seeing is actually more to  do with a preventive spray on metal surfaces rather than a factory deviation in color.  (Granted my humble opinion here only ). The metal skin is sprayed with Dynatrol which is an amber brownish color which is applied on all the wet areas of modern aircraft.  Ive been actively involved in commercial aviation my entire life.  Every Airbus and every Boeing aircraft in service today has this Dynatrol applied to the wet areas from the fuselage water line down.  The entire wheel bay areas are nicely coated in this stuff.   Corrosion prevention Gent’s.  I suggest this as a my hypothesis why?  Between the pictures you can see the severely corroded fuselage cockpit lip panel on the Ta-152 and yet the He 162 also has similar two tone color variance in the RLM 66. I agree to there being a two tone variations in color but the main instrument panel on the He-162 is a nice plywood and the side cockpit horizontal panel in the Ta 152 also appears to be a plywood laminate of some sort.  Dynatrol wouldn’t be applied to a wooden surface as its oil based and it would soak into the wood causing further delamination and early decay to the wooden surfaces.   If I had a 70+ year old Luftwaffe aircraft in my collection (many sat outside more years post war) I would want to preserve the skin areas to stop any corrosion from eating away at my little He-162 or Ta 152 before it hit its glorious rotation in the restoration line up.   

 

Just an idea to think about. A lot of activity has gone on in the 70 years these birds have been under someone’s care.  

 

That's an interesting and well-argued hypothesis there Troy, and merits careful thought. You certainly have me thinking about this. I also noted the wooden side console on the Ta152 and the colour differences between this and the sides and similar differences within the He162 cockpit.

 

An issue with the cockpit pictures above from Vincent might be the lighting they were taken under as fluorescent strip lighting (which is common in storage buildings) is well known for its green colouration that it can add to colour pictures. I don't know what lighting was used, but clarification if possible would be helpful. It doesn't seem to be daylight.

 

Padraic

[mattlow]

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.

[Guest Vincent]

On 1/31/2019 at 4:36 PM, Padraic Conway said:

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Vincent/MDC

[mattlow]

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

[Guest Vincent]

On 1/31/2019 at 5:41 PM, mattlow said:

 

 

Removed contribution

Edited February 2, 2019 by Vincent/MDC

[Padraic Conway]

7 minutes ago, Vincent/MDC said:

 

well, why are the instrument panels grey then ? And in person the green is even more pronounced than on this pictures.

 

also, when describing the RLM66 inspected within the production facilities, the british survey talks about "sea green" rather than "dark grey"

 

 

I was simply pointing out that the ambient lighting may have contributed to the perceived colour shift. I appreciate that English may not be your first language Vincent, but the tone of your reply is a little tetchy. The grey panels could simply be as they are because they are at a differing angle to any ambient lighting. What I'm trying to do here is to consider all the possible evidence.

 

I have no problem at all in accepting that RLM66 came in one or more colour variations; as Matt has pointed out, most of us accept that RLM76 came in differing colours. However, I'm not buying any  contemporary verbal description of colours at all; that's not evidence. You don't want to revisit the old 'Duck Egg Blue' debate I'm sure?

 

By the way Vincent, what's the source for your statement that RLM76 became a primer? As opposed to a finishing colour applied directly to bare metal?

[Guest Vincent]

On 1/31/2019 at 5:51 PM, Padraic Conway said:

 

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Vincent/MDC