A word of caution is appropriate. Many of the threads in the Nats Project
message board tend to digress more than the threads on other message boards. The
reader is advised to check the other threads in the Nats Project when looking
for information about a specific topic such as paint schemes or specific
aircraft types.
Standard Colour Selection
Posted By: Gary Barling <whitey@nrtco.net>
Date: Friday, 8 September 2000, at
11:23 a.m.
At the risk of jumping the gun by a
few months, has any decision been made regarding the "standard"
overall colour that we will use for our display entries? The old "light
grey" is certainly out. I have read of a few options: some use the
Floquil "Old Concrete," while others have posted a paint mix that
matches Iida's Zero at PH. Still others have identified an FS- equivalent, to
their satisfaction. I'm not sure which way to go, except that we probably
should arrive at a consensus based on accuracy, paint availability, and
(maybe) expertise in mixing (and mine ain't great!) Any thoughts? Or has this
been decided, and I'm merely three light years behind the power curve!
Re: Standard Colour Selection
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 8 September 2000, at
11:16 p.m.
In Response To: Standard Colour
Selection (Gary Barling)
When i was going through all of this a
while back, the BEST match in all lighting conditions was Aeromasters OOB
Acrylic Enamel Nakajima Interior Gray-Green. It was the stuff, and I hear they
are back in production, though I don't see it at Roll Models.
Re: Standard Colour Selection
Posted By: Gary Barling <whitey@nrtco.net>
Date: Saturday, 9 September 2000, at
10:44 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Standard Colour
Selection (Rob Graham)
Thanks for the info. I have a 1/2
bottle of Aeromaster 1093 Nakajima Interior Grey/Green, which I will now put
under lock and key. But (and there is always a "but") it is when I
compare this colour to the photos of artifacts posted by James Lansdale at J-Aircrat
that I hit the confusion wall. The artifacts appear to be more of a tan or
light brown than the more yellow/green of the Aeromaster paint. I picked up a
bottle of Floquil Old Concrete (based on comments found in the J-Aircraft
photo pages featuring the Zero) while in Dallas. When I compare this paint to
the artifact photos, it seems to be a closer match, and is about right for the
good old "scale effect."
Now, I'm no expert, and maybe this is
a tad too early to address the paint issue. But I'd appreciate any comments
that you or others might have so that, when push comes to shove, we're all in
the ballpark regarding our colours.
Thanks in advance for any further
insight!
Re: Standard Colour Selection
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 9 September 2000, at
9:27 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Standard Colour
Selection (Gary Barling)
When I hit the web Aero Master web
site, I see they are listing the paint again, so I think we're OK for now.
Regarding the color photos, NEVER
trust them 100%. the colors shift that way, then they get digitized and shift
a little there, then they are compressed into JPEG format, shifting more...
Finally, on your monitor, they shift a little there, too. Sure, they could
have come "full circle" but I would not trust it implicitly.
Ballpark close? Probably pretty good.
Additionally, the paint you're looking
at may not be the same as what I had.
I matched mine to a piece of a Munsell
sample Jim Lansdale gave me in a variety of lighting conditions and found MY
BOTTLE of Aero Master paint was the closest OOB, and was almost exactly it.
This is very unscientific, but is
pretty close, and I think it gives a good starting point. Anyone else have an
idea? Whatever we all decide on, I'll play along.
Re: Standard Colour Selection
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at
8:41 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Standard Colour
Selection (Rob Graham)
MY bottle of Naka Int. Green gave a
shade that was too yellow even after I glossed it. An addition of a little red
would probably tweak it but I'm out of paint. Gary, the color that Mr. Reece
specified was Polyscale Railroad Acrylic 414317 'Concrete', not 'Aged
Concrete' which is more tan in tone. Concrete, when covered with a clear gloss
is like 16350 but lighter in tone as if some white were added for scale
effect. See my next post.
Re: Standard Colour Selection
Posted By: Tim Hortman <thortman@epix.net>
Date: Friday, 8 September 2000, at
5:07 p.m.
In Response To: Standard Colour
Selection (Gary Barling)
To the best of my knowledge, this has
not been done. I know that there was some talk of 'new' color info on the IJN
page a while back, but I didn't print it, or write it down. I think it should
still be there if you did a search of Pearl Harbor.
We should be talking color soon, after
we get everyone invovled with the display.
Re: Standard Colour Selection
Posted By: Gary Barling <whitey@nrtco.net>
Date: Friday, 8 September 2000, at
8:23 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Standard Colour
Selection (Tim Hortman)
Agreed. We will eventually, of course,
need consensus on the colour questions. I wondered if it had been reached
already. I expect to be ready to paint by mid/end October. If we have a way to
go then, fine. If not, the Val goes on the shelf until we are sure of the
colour scheme(s).
PH Zero and Kaga Kate Colors
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at
9:32 a.m.
Tim asked me to repost this info and I
have some new input.
The artifacts from Fusata Iida's A6M2b
which crashed at Kaneohe NAS and from Takashi Hirano's A6M2b which crashed at
Fort Kamehameha are a color which can be matched by this mix of Testor's
ModelMaster Enamels:
20 parts SAC Bomber Tan 1792
11 parts White 1768
1 part Green Zinc Chromate 1734
This gives the full-sized color. To
render scale effect for a 1/72nd subject add 30% white to the total volume of
the mix.
I have now examined three pieces of
skin from the B5N2 which crashed on the grounds of the navy hospital. This
plane was painted overall in a paint which I have matched exactly to FS 16350.
It was then overpainted on upper surfaces with a flat, very dark green which
varies between 34079 and 34083. I believe that the overpainting was done with
hand brushes due to evidence of brush strokes overlapping a red marking (which
was applied with a spray gun and was masked with an adhesive tape.) It is also
possible that large areas were sprayed heavily and the hand brushing was done
to touch up around the markings but the coverage of green is quite thick on
all artifacts.
The large section of skin from a B5N2
which is also held by the Nimitz I now think is from another aircraft. The
overall gray color is similar to 16350 but lighter in tone and is in fact
quite similar to Polyscale Railroad Acrylic 414317 'Concrete'. The topside
flat black-green was applied unevenly with a spray gun and ranges from 34096
in the heavy areas to 34082 where the paint is thin.
David Aiken tells me that all Kate
losses at PH were from the Kaga torpedo attack unit. This means that there is
some variation of color and style of application even among the aircraft from
the same ship. Perhaps there were not enough spray guns to complete the whole
repaint within the specified time?
At any rate I feel that Polyscale
Concrete with 27 to 30% white added would be a good choice for the person
building a Kaga Kate in 1/72nd. The floor is open for discussion!
Re: PH Zero and Kaga Kate Colors
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at
11:39 a.m.
In Response To: PH Zero and Kaga Kate
Colors (Greg Springer)
I'm thinking that, in essence of
uniformity, perhaps YOU could mix up a batch of the paint, and ship it out.
I'll chip in $20 to see it happen that way. I really think we need to get them
all uniform in appearance, and this would lend an extra level of authenticity.
Would you be game?
I'm thinking we could make a big
batch, put it in the Model Master empty bottles, and ship out the bottles to
the group for use, charging $2 or so each. Cool?
Re: PH Zero and Kaga Kate Colors
Posted By: Jeffrey Barta <barta.j@hsl51.navy.mil>
Date: Wednesday, 13 September 2000, at
11:19 p.m.
In Response To: Re: PH Zero and Kaga
Kate Colors (Rob Graham)
In reference to having all aircraft
painted in a uniform manner with the same shade of paint, I would beg to offer
an opinion, based on my current position as a pilot and Officer in Charge of a
US Navy SH60B detachment stationed in Japan and having spoken with Saburo
Sakai on this very matter.
To wit: Aircraft have and always will
be painted as need arises. It was not common and is not currently common for
aircraft within individual units to be painted to a uniform standard, even
though the general paint schemes are standardized. Often times, the same batch
of paint will result in different colors once applied, having been applied by
different methods (brush, airgun, rag) at different times (actual aircraft
paint tends to film over VERY quickly in an open container, often
necessitating re-thinning for application). Even the individual technique
employed by paint technicians will vary the color, texture and overall
adhesiveness of an applied color. Furthermore, constant corrosion prevention
required in a maritime environment will inevitably result in an aircraft
looking like a leper or a zebra even if only recently painted- the care and
dedication of the individual plane captain in cleaning and upkeep will vary
appearances greatly. Hence, NO two aircraft will have the same coloring even
if they are painted to the same scheme within a particular unit. I would be
glad to provide modern day examples by JPG if anyone is interested.
My advice would be to provide the
appropriate mixing instructions for the colors required and let individual
modellers screw it up, just like the real thing.
Re: PH Zero and Kaga Kate Colors
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 14 September 2000, at
9:19 a.m.
In Response To: Re: PH Zero and Kaga
Kate Colors (Jeffrey Barta)
Thanks for the idea, however the
differences from plane to plane will vary enough on account of the different
modelers' finishing techniques. Take a look at a pair of your older khaki
uniform trousers along with an older shirt. They look fine, right? But mix
them with a new set, and you'll see a difference. Khaki, especially a
greenish-grayish-khakiish color such as these planes, will look GLARINGLY
different, though they may look the same when across the room from one
another. For a 1/72 scale bird, it could easily look like (though less
extreme) the difference between olive drab and tan, double-especially when
considering the often poor lighting these convention hall lights have.
I am sure there were different
variations of the colors, but all of the photos I have seen of the PH aircraft
(overpainted excepted) show a rather conspicuously uniform appearance, as
though they had recently been through an IG (Could that have happened???).
The variations on the colors we have
today are mainly based on the various relic samples, and not all of them have
been lovingly preserved over the years as a select few of them have.
Again, thanks, and I hope you can
understand my point. Modelers vary from kit to kit, the finishing techniques
vary, the conditions during painting vary, the thinning ratio varies by
airbrush or other method, and fluorescent lighting really accentuates the
differences. I am hoping that all of us using THE SAME paint will not vary TOO
much.
Re: PH Zero and Kaga Kate Colors
Posted By: Tim Hortman <thortman@epix.net>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at
4:36 p.m.
In Response To: Re: PH Zero and Kaga
Kate Colors (Rob Graham)
I must say that this is a SUPER idea!
I'm certainly in for whatever it will
cost. I think that this would make a big impression in uniformity (sp) with
the display. I guess I've been penciled in for one each Zero/Kate/Val, so I
could use help on the mixes!
Thanks Greg, for
"volunteering" :^)
Let me know when, where, and who to
send some $$ to...
Re: PH Zero and Kaga Kate Colors
Posted By: Gary Barling <whitey@nrtco.net>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at
4:14 p.m.
In Response To: Re: PH Zero and Kaga
Kate Colors (Rob Graham)
If this elixir is usable on my Val off
the AKAGI, then I am most definitely in. Please advise if I can use this
magical potion!
Re: PH Zero and Kaga Kate Colors
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at
1:28 p.m.
In Response To: Re: PH Zero and Kaga
Kate Colors (Rob Graham)
I will be happy to do that. A bottle
of Testors is around $2.59 at my local shop. I would do it for cost, packaging
and postage. I have the equipment to mix pretty accurately. I can measure to
1/10th of a milliliter. A bottle is supposed to be 15 ml but usually contains
around 17 ml. If we agree on an addition of 30% white for scale effect I can
do that too. Six bottles for six Zeroes and six Polyscale for six Kates
wouldn't be difficult to do.
Re: PH Zero and Kaga Kate Colors
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at
12:37 p.m.
In Response To: Re: PH Zero and Kaga
Kate Colors (Rob Graham)
Cool and I go for this idea. So much
so that I will "sign up" for Fuchida's Kate (AI-301) and an
unspecified Zero if we can concur on a 'gray' paint shade. Thanks all for
contributing.
Yet another "gray" question
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Monday, 9 October 2000, at 4:20
p.m.
This has probably been answered
somewhere, but I'll ask, since I haven't seen the answer yet. Ok. I know there
are two colors of grays used around the time of "the Hawaiian
Operation". I'll call them "gray-green" and "grey poupon",
because that's the least confusing to me, and I think everyone here knows what
I mean by those. My question is this: how do we know which of these to use on
which a/c? I was wondering, because not only would I like to know for my Kaga
Kate, but I'm currently building a couple other B5Ns as well as a D3A for my
own personal enjoyment, and I'd like to know what to paint them. If this has
already been answered somewhere, I'm really sorry.
Re: grays
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, 9 October 2000, at 5:40
p.m.
In Response To: Yet another
"gray" question (Phil)
There are a range of colors in use at
Pearl Harbor. There are a range of colors that have been called
"J3", "Gray-Green", and "Hairyokushoku".
We have determined that the scans
shown on the General Board on 13 Sep 4:17PM; 13 Sep 8:14PM; 14 Sep 10:06AM; 14
Sep 2:02PM are of J3/Greenish-Gray/Hairyokushoku. This shows the tell-tale
greenish cast to the gray.
The Kaga KATE color is NOT this J3
color. See the scan of 28 Sep 4:58AM (Nats Board). The tell-tale greenish cast
is not present in the scan.
Be aware that the Nakajima gray scan
on 3 Oct 8:26PM is ALSO not J3. The tell-tale greenish cast is not present. In
fact a blueish tint is present. The item was well protected in its years in
the jungle despite the corrosion.
The study continues for various use of
undersurface colors at Pearl Harbor. Thus far:
Akagi VAL: J3
Kaga VAL: I3
Kaga KATE: a dark gray
Soryu/Hiryu VAL: I3
Soryu/Hiryu KATE: I3
Shokaku KATE: I3
These colors are ONE item to help in
the study to identify Japanese aircrews of the 7 Dec 1941 crashed planes.
Other items from the various crashed planes are also important to this quest
which means that every question about the source crash is needed to
confirm/deny a part came from a particular site.
Grays?
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Monday, 9 October 2000, at 7:48
p.m.
In Response To: Re: grays (David_Aiken)
I looked at the scan in question. I
guess it's me, but from the small size and dark shade, I had always thought it
was part of the upper surface, and was a dark green. But, if it's actually a
gray, then yes, it is a mostly pure dark gray. But, the possibility exists
that I could be totally wrong on that. Things were much simpler when Zeros and
Vals were white or light gray, and Kates had green upper surfaces. Sigh...
Read Monday 9 Oct 5:40PM posting
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2000, at
12:46 p.m.
In Response To: Kate & Val Colors
@ PH (Tim Hortman)
Sorry for the confusion on the many
colors that were called "J3" in many postings.
To see the scans of "J3" see
the General Board postings of:
13 Sep 4:17PM and 8:14PM
14 Sep 10:06AM and 2:02PM
This "J3" was NOT used on
Zeros at Pearl Harbor. A color similar to I3, yet seemingly different, WAS
used on Pearl Harbor Zeros. That difference has been the subject of a host of
postings over two and half years.
The posting of Monday, 9 Oct 5:40PM,
collects the various postings on undersurface colors as used at Pearl Harbor
for KATEs and VALs.
How about this then...
Posted By: Tim Hortman <thortman@epix.net>
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2000, at
11:26 p.m.
In Response To: Read Monday 9 Oct
5:40PM posting (David_Aiken)
Frankly I'm pretty confused at the
usage of the J3, I3, J2, etc.
Could we possibly just give a range of
Federial Standard colors say that J3 (etc) would fall into? I know that these
are single colors, but as a few have pointed out, no two batches of paint are
ever 'exactly' alike. If we could get an accepted "range" of color
on the FS chart it would give us modelers something to go by as a starting
point for our kits.
I don't want to get our colors wrong,
but I do feel we could debate this right up until the Convention itself. If we
get close, I'm sure we can get the attention we are looking for. [ie: we
already know all of our aircraft are not going to be painted the standard
'light grey'..]
Are there any ideas on the approximate
FS numbers used on the different aircraft at PH?
Re: J3, I3 or "something
different"?
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2000, at
1:33 p.m.
In Response To: Read Monday 9 Oct
5:40PM posting (David_Aiken)
Come on now! How can a Zero modeler
decide between J3, I3 or "something different" to paint his Pearl
Harbor model?
(Lets not even mention the Kate and
Val modelers who have another two and a half years to get to this stage with
the Zeros!)
sarcastically in fun,
Re: J3, I3 or "something
different"?
Posted By: ALP <alp_ert@mail.matav.hu>
Date: Friday, 13 October 2000, at
11:15 a.m.
In Response To: Re: J3, I3 or
"something different"? (Mike Quan)
Please do not forget the ONE Jake and
ONE Glen!
Re: J3, I3 or "something
different"?
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Friday, 13 October 2000, at
11:19 a.m.
In Response To: Re: J3, I3 or
"something different"? (ALP)
You mean TWO Jakes and one Glen,
right?
We are doing both JII-1 from the
Chikuma and JI-1 from the Tone!
Re: J3, I3 or "something
different"?
Posted By: ALP <alp_ert@mail.matav.hu>
Date: Friday, 13 October 2000, at
11:30 a.m.
In Response To: Re: J3, I3 or
"something different"? (Mike Quan)
Who is doing the other one?
As both were presumably grey (?) I
wouldn't mind doing either.
Re: J3, I3 or "something
different"?
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Friday, 13 October 2000, at 1:49
p.m.
In Response To: Re: J3, I3 or
"something different"? (ALP)
Alp, the list I have shows you as
signed up for JII-1, with JI-1 yet to be spoken for. Anyone out there want to
do an all gray Jake?
By the way, the tail codes look to be
difficult to find decals for, as they are outlined codes letters.
A (Possible) Color System?
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2000, at
4:55 p.m.
I am proposing the following: I have
taken care of the color for all Zeroes in the project and I feel that, since
they were factory-painted at Nagoya, they could have been fairly uniform.
Kates and Vals SEEM to have been painted for the mission at ship's air group
level and variation is known between the Kaga artifacts at Nimitz which are
16350 and David's artifact from a Shokaku B5N which is a different color as he
has described. If we are going to build first and second wave aircraft then I
feel that each pair from the same ship should match but otherwise there is
room for different interpretations of I3 or J3 and topside greens. For example
the first and second wave Akagi guys could agree to use Polyscale Concrete on
the undersides and Tamiya IJN Green on top surfaces. I am NOT proposing to do
any more mixes as I am up to my eyeteeth in research projects, writing and
trying to finish my 6-month-old Zero project. Talk amongst yourselves.
Re: A (Possible) Color System?
Posted By: Tim Hortman <thortman@epix.net>
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2000, at
11:37 p.m.
In Response To: A (Possible) Color
System? (Greg Springer)
This is what I had in mind when I
wrote my last post.
I would like to be as accurate as we
can, but we're not getting much closer to choosing the colors we are going to
use on the Vals & Kates.
I think you have the right idea on the
colors. Can we now agree what range of colors we should be choosing from. I
know that Shokaku's Kates are different from the Akagi Kates, but what are we
looking at? You mentioned Concrete, is that close to one of the colors for the
Val?
Anyone else have some thoughts?
Re: A (Possible) Color System?
Posted By: Gary Barling <whitey@nrtco.net>
Date: Friday, 13 October 2000, at 9:35
a.m.
In Response To: Re: A (Possible) Color
System? (Tim Hortman)
I have to rely on the experts on this
page to determine the most accurate colours to use. We appear to have the Zero
colours pegged, with Kates, Vals and Jakes more problematical. So, a
suggestion: keep the research and discussion going up to a designated cutoff
date. At that time, based on what we know then, we make the call (Concrete,
Modelmaster mix, or other solution) and go with that. Otherwise we may find
ourselves caught in a wheelspinning exercise with no decision made until its
too late. My recommended date: no later than 31 Jan 2001. We build until then,
then paint. And, of course, if we're happy with a decision before that date,
we go ahead and paint earlier.
My two yen worth!
Re: A (Possible) Color System?
Posted By: Tim Hortman <thortman@epix.net>
Date: Friday, 13 October 2000, at 9:48
a.m.
In Response To: Re: A (Possible) Color
System? (Gary Barling)
Sounds good to me!
Any other ideas?
Re: A (Possible) Color System?
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dave@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Saturday, 14 October 2000, at
6:27 a.m.
In Response To: Re: A (Possible) Color
System? (Tim Hortman)
I'm darn near ready to paint, so I'll
just anxiously await the decision. Also, I think Gary meant 2000, not 2001 in
his post (we might miss the contest that way ).
My suggestion is to get this decided
asap as there are some folks painting 2-3 aircraft and having to have them
finished by July so we need to be aware of that as well.
PollyScale Concrete v. Floquil
Concrete
Posted By: joe taylor <jtaylor@bhfs.bellhowell.com>
Date: Monday, 16 October 2000, at 9:51
a.m.
WOW, has anyone seen these two
"Concrete" colors side by side? The difference will knock you out.
The PollyScale is a soft tannish color and Floquil is a relatively dark olive
tan color. It is almost exactly the same gray-green as MM RLM 02.
Re: PollyScale Concrete v. Floquil
Concrete
Posted By: Randy
Date: Monday, 16 October 2000, at
10:45 a.m.
In Response To: PollyScale Concrete v.
Floquil Concrete (joe taylor)
You said, It is almost exactly the
same gray-green as MM RLM 02. Which one? PollyScale or Floquil?
Re: PollyScale Concrete v. Floquil
Concrete
Posted By: joe taylor <jtaylor@bhfs.bellhowell.com>
Date: Monday, 16 October 2000, at
10:49 a.m.
In Response To: Re: PollyScale
Concrete v. Floquil Concrete (Randy)
It would have helped if I said the
Floquil Concrete is almost exactly the same as Model Master RLM 02 (enamel).
Re: PollyScale Concrete v. Floquil
Concrete
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Monday, 16 October 2000, at 4:00
p.m.
In Response To: Re: PollyScale
Concrete v. Floquil Concrete (joe taylor)
How about Floquil RLM 02? What does
that compare to?
Re: PollyScale Concrete v. Floquil
Concrete
Posted By: joe taylor <jtaylor@bhfs.bellhowell.com>
Date: Monday, 16 October 2000, at 4:03
p.m.
In Response To: Re: PollyScale
Concrete v. Floquil Concrete (Phil)
I have not seen Floquil RLM 02 but Tom
Cleaver had post about RLM 02. A respondent said that RLM 02 had a Japanese
counterpart. That posting is either in the project board or the IJN board.
If you get any faster...
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Monday, 16 October 2000, at 4:05
p.m.
In Response To: Re: PollyScale
Concrete v. Floquil Concrete (joe taylor)
Joe, if you start responding to these
posts any faster, you'll be replying before people are asking!
Re: If you get any faster...
Posted By: Tom Baldwin <tom_baldwin@mcfa.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 October 2000, at
6:46 a.m.
In Response To: If you get any
faster... (Phil)
I had this conversation with Tom
Cleaver last week concerning J3/RLM 02. He felt that Gunze RLM02 was a close
enough match out of the bottle for J3 gray/green. I was considering using
Aeromaster 02, but through experimenting I have come up close with a
combination of Testors MM RLM02 (can't believe I'm saying the MM word) with
white which I feel is as close to 6350 as I can get. I have tried Greg
Springer's mix, which I may use for a Pearl plane but right now i'm working on
a Sakai A6M2. I lookied for Floquil Concrete on Sun, there are few places here
in Houston that still carry it, but they didn't have any, same for PollyScale
concrete. My hobby store has Old Concrete, but is too brown. Just a side note,
I work for Mitsubishi/Caterpillar and have a few contacts with the parent co.
in Japan, I email a fellow modeler over there who tells me that Japanese
modelers are suffereing the same dilemma as we are about this color!
Re: If you get any faster...
Posted By: joe taylor <jtaylor@bhfs.bellhowell.com>
Date: Monday, 16 October 2000, at 4:11
p.m.
In Response To: If you get any
faster... (Phil)
Phil, the message came in while I was
sitting here. Couldn't resist a quick answer for you.
I can't find Tom's posting...I wonder
if anyone remebers it???
Re: If you get any faster...
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Monday, 16 October 2000, at 4:20
p.m.
In Response To: Re: If you get any
faster... (joe taylor)
Actually, I looked it up a couple days
ago. But, I can't find it anymore! Anyways, I believe he noted that RLM 02
provided the proper contrast to the white markings on his models as seen in
original photographs.
Re: If you get any faster...
Posted By: joe taylor <jtaylor@bhfs.bellhowell.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 October 2000, at
7:05 a.m.
In Response To: Re: If you get any
faster... (Phil)
Phil, is the MM and Floquil compatible
for a mix? My stir sticks show that the two paints differ only in the green
tint of the MM RLM 02. Perhaps 1/3 (or less) MM added to 2/3 Concrete will
shift the mix enough to complete the puzzle.
IJNAF greens, an attempt of
rationalization
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 2:06
a.m.
After these exchanges about Pearl Kate
colors, I think it is time to re-assess our knowledge about IJNAF greens.
1. The first use of green as a topside
color of IJNAF planes (the 1920’s scheme of Dk. Green over clear doped linen
notwithstanding) is the green used in the field applied so-called Kumogata
scheme which appeared in China.
So far, it seems that no relic bearing
this scheme has been retrieved, so we do not know exactly which brown(s?) was
(were) used but we don’t know either which Dk. Green was in fact used too !
…
Now, Greg Springer said that close
examination of Pearl Kate relics revealed the use of a Dk.Green color on the
uppersurfaces which was near FS 34079 in the thickest part of the coat applied
(other FS references given seem to apply to thinner part of the coating, thus
influenced by the color of the background).
I assume that the makeshift
camouflages used during the Hawaiian Operation were done with whatever paint
currently available to the crews of the carriers. If so, it is logical to
consider (moreover for a Kaga plane) that remnants of the paint once used in
Kumogata camouflage (which was certainly procured through direct IJNAF orders)
were used. Hence, my opinion is that the "Kumogata green" (or at
least one its variant if variants they were) was near FS 34079. This doesn’t
seem strange, when you consider this color (which is the color attributed to
FRESH US Olive Drab) is part of a camouflage devised for concealing airplanes
above the large LAND masses of China and that this green has more brown in it
than the greens then used by IJNAF as sea camouflage color… Sp top say that
– for example – The Type 99 Model 11 dive bombers repainted with a Dk.
Green uppersurface at unit level in early 1942 might well have been in fact
34079 over 16160…
If I’m correct, it means that any
IJNAF plane using green uppersurfaces is liable to have received a Dk. Green
uppersurface coat near FS 34079, until this practice was introduced at factory
level. A practice which began at a much earlier date than once believed – I
suggest spring 1942 – as the only planes not to be concerned seem to have
been the Zero fighters until spring 1943 – at factory level – and June
1943 – at unit level).
2. As the practice of painting a
Dk.Green coat on the uppersurfaces was introduced, a new RANGE of Dk. Greens
make its appearance. It is characterized by the introduction of differences
that were peculiar to EACH manufacturer:
We know that Mitsubishi used a Dk
Green identified by Jim Lansdale as FS *4052 and Nakajima used a darker color
identified by Jim as FS *4077… It appears that these colors were whether
semi-gloss or Matt
Up to this time I thought bad
application was responsible of the fact the reconditioned in overall green
uppersurface G4M1’s once in Kumogata scheme let see the old pattern through…
But now I have another theory: If the original green was FS 34079, then it is
all too natural that the application (even a correct one) of the new
Mitsubishi green used on of factory painted new planes on the once brown parts
of the original scheme preserved the pattern (so the planes might have been in
fact 34079 and 34052 instead of the original pattern of FS 34079 and a yet
unidentified brown).
It seems nonetheless that our
knowledge of these "manufacturers" Dk.Greens are incomplete…
We know about Mitsubishi and Nakajima,
but we do not know as exactly about other manufacturers…
Once Jim said he examined D3A2 relics
(seemingly a plane produced by Showa) and the uppersurfaces were – he told
us – D1… But what is exactly D1 from D2 (reference attributed to
Mitsubishi AND Nakajima greens) as far as Munsell or FS references are
concerned ?
What were the greens used by Aichi,
Kawanishi and the various Navy Air Arsenals (Yokosuka, Kugisho …) ?
The only thing I know about them are
quotations from Japanese books saying that the Kawanishi variant was the bluer
green of them all and the D2 reference extracted from Owaki’s finding of a
template dated Feb. 1945 and the samples digitalized by Rob Graham which I
suppose might be very near to the kind of green used by Navy Air Arsenals
(more liable to conform the "official" recommendations…
Does anybody have an idea ?
Re: IJNAF greens, an attempt of
rationalization
Posted By: Claus Krüger <cdk59@msn.com>
Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at
1:31 p.m.
In Response To: IJNAF greens, an
attempt of rationalization (François P. WEILL)
allow me to bring some more confusion
to the Navy green's.
1. On Sept.4. at 2.18 p.m. J.Landsdale
postet a message on the Navy Bord and say that the green on the Hosp.Kate is
Munsell 5GY3/1.
2. 5GY3/1 is also the Munsell notation
for german RLM 71
Dark Green as you can read in
"German Aircraft Markings"by
K.A.Merrick.
3. During the restauration of the
Austr.War Memorial A6M-2
Serial No.5784 a inner piece from the
right wing show's stamp's from german Alluminium manufactures.Date
11.März(March)1939.
4. In so far I know the Zero 5784 was
manufactured by Mitsubishi before April 1941.(know someone a better date ?)
So we can suppose that Germany
supplied between March 1939 and Spring 1941 material for the jap.aircraft
Industrie.
So it is possible that there was also
some Paint supplied.
The german paint was by that time a
good quality and export was also made to the Netherland's,Switzerland and
Sweden.
5. I do not say that the PH Green or
the Green in the Kumogata sheme was RLM 71,but can it possible?
After the Battle of Britain or a short
time before the german fighter's were not more painted with Green so we can
suppose that there are large stock's of green available.
Close by-In "War Eagles in
org.Color"page 221is a color picture wich show's a float in Green-Brown.The
shadow in the picture indicates to me that the shot was made around
12 a clock at a sunny day.All colors
look well.
So I will say that the Green look
right for an old RLM 71.
Do you don't know that picture I can
send a scan to you.
Re: IJNAF greens, an attempt of
rationalization
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at
6:05 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJNAF greens, an
attempt of rationalization (Claus Krüger)
You wrote
>> Hello Francois,
allow me to bring some more confusion
to the Navy green's.
1. On Sept.4. at 2.18 p.m. J.
Landsdale posted a message on the Navy Board and say that the green on the
Hosp.Kate is Munsell 5GY3/1.
2. 5GY3/1 is also the Munsell notation
for German RLM 71
Dark Green as you can read in
"German Aircraft Markings" by
K.A. Merrick.
3. During the restauration of the
Austr.War Memorial A6M-2
Serial No.5784 a inner piece from the
right wing show's stamp's from German Aluminum manufacturing Date 11.März
(March)1939.
4. In so far I know the Zero 5784 was
manufactured by Mitsubishi before April 1941.(know someone a better date ?)
<<
Ryan and Jim answered this point… In
fact it was one of the last Mitsubishi built Model 21.
>> So we can suppose that
Germany supplied between March 1939 and Spring 1941 material for the jap.
aircraft Industry. <<
No doubt some STRATEGIC material was
supplied to Japan by Germany. But even before the allied blockade was so tight
that it almost dry any possibilities of deliveries, it was not a simple task
for the German ships (and then submarines) to deliver goods to Japan in a
world already at war half a world apart.
My opinion is that prior the opening
of WW2 in Europe, Japan being submitted to embargo on mineral resources and
petroleum it was lacking from domestic source by the will of the USA and its
allies since the beginning of the "Chinese Incident", and Germany
and Italy being already heavily committed in preparing their aggressive moves,
deliveries were limited to really strategic materials unavailable from nearer
part of the world… Aluminum being part of these "sensitive goods"
(hence the Zero panel)…
>>So it is possible that there
was also some Paint supplied.
The German paint was by that time a
good quality and export was also made to the Netherland's, ,Switzerland and
Sweden. <<
... But I sincerely doubt that any
commonly available products like paint (that may depend of petroleum
distillates it is true, but what would have been the interest to carry
pigments already available in Japan thus diminishing the quantity of petroleum
transported under the same volume and weight ?
Sincerely, I doubt very much that
genuine RLM paints had ever been imported (beside the shade should be the same
but it would be very easy to control it is the same paint formula as RLM paint
formulas are well known now)… Remember that the same Munsell and FS
references apply to modern (or fresh WW2 Dk. Olive drab 41) US olive drab: FS
34079… This green shade is especially suitable to conceal anything under the
temperate climate vegetation. It is common to MANY military establishments in
the world… We cannot rule out the influence of some German camouflage
experts on the choice of the shade, but I bet this color was produced in
Japan.
What seems to me very interesting is
the fact that it was certainly ordered by the IJNAF authorities and thus
liable to be found on any aircraft of any manufacturer before the green
uppersurfaces began to be applied at factory level…
In turn it gives us a possible
identification not only of the green used in Kumogata camouflage but also of
any field applied uppersurface green on planes not produced with this kind of
defensive finish, like the D3A1 between Pearl Harbor and the Indian Ocean
operation….
>>5. I do not say that the PH
Green or the Green in the Kumogata sheme was RLM 71,but can it possible?
<<
I have SERIOUS doubts for the reason I
exposed before… Anyway, a chemical analysis of the Hospital Kate relic green
would tell if the paint formula might have been the same as RLM 71 German
paint…
>>After the Battle of Britain or
a short time before the German fighter's were not more painted with Green so
we can suppose that there are large stock's of green available.<<
As Far as I can remember my reading on
Luftwaffe camouflage subject RLM 71 was anyway used much later on bombers and
even as an acceptable substitution for the new references green late in the
war… So the supply was certainly considerable and not easily exhausted…
But in anyway, I think that the Japanese were before the Pacific war began and
even later (until the closing days of 1944) largely self sufficient in terms
of paint… Remember that their greens, once they decided to apply them at
factory level, were in no way similar to German greens and it was at least
spring 1942 when they first use of what I call "naval greens" with
much more blue in them was done…
>> Close by-In "War Eagles
in org.Color" page 221 is a color picture which show's a float in
Green-Brown. The shadow in the picture indicates to me that the shot was made
around
12 a clock at a sunny day. All colors
look well.
So I will say that the Green look
right for an old RLM 71.
Do you don't know that picture I can
send a scan to you. <<
I’ll be glad to have this scan but I
must warn you against too literal interpretation of a color photo printed in a
book… Color balance of the original – assuming that the original HAS a
correct balance itself (and I doubt the Kodak gray scale and Color chart are
visible on this picture to have an objective reference tool) – is not
generally preserved in a classical printing process and only costly control
especially asked for by the publisher will have a chance to guarantee a
faithful reproduction… A simple way to verify the degree of reliability is
to look for a known white zone on the printed photo and to see if some color
dominant is present… In this case I would look for any suspect yellowing of
a white zone… This will indicate a too warm rendition of colors on the
picture… My Photoshop will take care of that on your scan :))).
Re: IJNAF Greens/A6M2 s/n 5784
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at
3:47 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJNAF greens, an
attempt of rationalization (Claus Krüger)
You wrote, "In so far I know the
Zero 5784 was manufactured by Mitsubishi before April 1941.(know someone a
better date ?)
Mitsubishi completed A6M2 model 21 s/n
5784 (c/n 784) on 31 May 1942 for sure!
Re: IJNAF greens, an attempt of
rationalization
Posted By: Ryan Toews <ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at
3:09 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJNAF greens, an
attempt of rationalization (Claus Krüger)
Mitsubishi s/n 5784 was built in the
last week of May 1942. It was almost one of the last A6M2s built by Mitsubishi
before the switch to the A6M3 on the assembly line.
"Field" Applied paint for 7
Dec 1941
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at
10:35 a.m.
KATE and VAL types were training at
various airfields... when, in late Oct 1941, the order came for camouflage.
Japanese crews confirm the date and the training operations at that point.
As we see from relics, the Akagi VALs
and Kaga KATEs received FIELD APPLICATIONS of J3 greenish-gray on their
undersurface. Akagi/Kaga KATEs were at Kagoshima Field. Akagi/Kaga VALs were
at Tomitaka Fields.
Soryu/Hiryu were at Kasanohara Field
and received the khaki I3.
The Shokaku KATEs were at Usa Field
and received I3. Zuikaku KATEs were there, too.
Other training fields were:
Izumi Field: Soryu/Hiryu KATEs
Oita Field: Shokaku/Zuikaku VALs
Zeros were already in a factory
finish. They trained at:
Omura Field; Oita Field; and Saeki
Field.
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 8:05
a.m.
In Response To: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (David_Aiken)
It is easy to buy into the idea of the
Aichi factory repaint [no order exists] of the J3 greenish-gray on ALL Aichi
VALs and Nakajima KATEs...if they had had room on the production line to
schedule such a repaint, but this is very doubtful. IF such was done, why are
most relic samples WITHOUT the standard factory red primer? Inconsistancy.
BUT only a few (posted 29 Oct 10:35AM)
VALs and KATEs had J3 "hairyokushoku" greenish-gray [nicely adhered,
with OR without red primer], while others had the I3 "gray poupon"
khaki-brown (which is NOT "hairyokushoku"), without red primer. That
inconsistancy of J3 or I3 further suggests a "field" finish
application rather than such a "uniform look" from the factory.
And security for such a CHANGE in
operational preparedness was better at the airfields than with those nasty
GS-5s at the factory.
The "KATE and VAL types were
training at various airfields... when, in late Oct 1941, the order came for
camouflage. Japanese crews confirm the date and the training operations at
that point." Thankfully the crews recall the problem in interruption of
their training to have their planes painted.
"Let your heart not be
troubled..."
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 3:02
p.m.
In Response To: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (David_Aiken)
Thank you for your posting. You wrote,
"KATE and VAL types were training at various airfields... when, in late
Oct 1941, the order came for camouflage."
Do you have a copy or source for this
order? And, what colors were stated for the camouflage? We are trying to
document these processes and a source would be of importance in such
documentation.
You also stated, "As we see from
relics, the Akagi VALs and Kaga KATEs received FIELD APPLICATIONS of J3
greenish-gray on their undersurface."
Quite the contrary! The relics appear
to show the overall hairyokushoku (gray-green or "grey-poupon")
finish was a factory application. This coating appears to have been carefully
spray-painted over bare metal! The color which was "field applied"
(and, often, very crudely) appears to be the dark green (or, as you call it,
"olive drab") on the Kate upper surfaces over n/m; or the gray-green
(hairyokushoku) overall finish; or the (later designated I3)"grey-poupon."
You also stated, "Soryu/Hiryu
were at Kasanohara Field and received the khaki I3. The Shokaku KATEs were at
Usa Field and received I3. Zuikaku KATEs were there, too."
This is a possibility. However, the
Kates may also have been painted at the factory. What is your source that the
Kates and Vals were painted on their bases? I apologize to you, lest you think
I am being "knit picky," but I sincerely try to cite my sources
whenever possible and indicate that which is speculation.
Please share your sources with us to
help document this research.
Thank you for your help.
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 9:55
p.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (James F. Lansdale)
I REALLY don't want to open a NEW can
of worms, but as to the lack of primer, WHAT IF the paint was all stripped off
prior to a hastily applied gray-green? I would bet that if they had primer,
silver paint, plus any other colors and touch ups, the plane would start
weighing extra, and the crewmen MAY have viewed this as too high a price to
pay.
So, if they stripped the planes to NMF
and painted them gray-green, I would think this as a better (speculative)
explanation.
Pure speculation, sure, but it might
give POSSIBLE light to the mysteriously absent primer. And it MIGHT lend some
credence to the possibility of the different planes having different colors,
though I am not sure if that has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt just
yet.
Oh, well... "Picture yourself on
a boat on a river..."
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941 *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 3:25
a.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (Rob Graham)
Yup! 'Could have been that way!
However, I usually find that the more
convoluted a theory is, the less likely it is to be correct! Some of the paint
schemes seen on Kates, particularly those from the SHOKAKU seem to indicate
that the the dark camouflaging was appled in great haste.
If this is correct, I seriously doubt
that the crews, trying to follow a rather intense training schedule and
practicing their attacks in Japan before they sortied, would have had the time
to do all the paint work you suggest. It is more likely that many of the
aircraft were the best and newest available and that they had been pre-painted
gray-green overall at the factory.
See photo below of SORYU Kate [BI-323]
on 10 October 1941, from FAOW No.32, p.44, bottom.
I am trying to keep my speculations to
a minimum and stick to established facts. Even as rare as the actual relics we
have are, I am more convinced that it is even less likely that we have in
these relics the exceptions to the more common applications of finish or
camouflage.
Old beliefs die hard and we are never
able to prove something could not have existed!
[Editors note: The image is not
replicated in the FAQs]
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at
10:59 a.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
I was thinking that, given the choice,
the Japanese would have left off the primer rather than grounded the planes
that much longer to apply it.
But another hole in the though, adding
to the convolution, was the quality of the hairyokushoku paint looks
"factory smooth" on the 2 relics I've seen. That's a drop in the
bucket, sure, but (IIRC) it did look better-applied than the dark green
overcoat.
As far as the photo, it appears to ME
to be a rather dull finish, decidedly lighter than the Hinos and such. It
doesn't look silver, in spite of the possibility the tail surfaces COULD be
red. Interesting subject. Do you (as I do) attribute the blotchiness on the
side of the fuselage to poor film or development chemicals?
Something else makes sense... *PIC*
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at
11:27 a.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (Rob Graham)
When I first saw this pic, I thought
it was maybe just a dirtied silver bird. But, after seeing the above scan, it
looks like the same finish to me! It's from the Japanese a/c Internet Museum,
whose caption says it has an overall coat of silver, with a red tail. Odd
thing is, it just doesn't look silver to me. I could very well be wrong,
though. In fact, it's quite likely. BTW, this is a B5N1 in China.
[Editors note: The image is not
replicated in the FAQs]
Re: Something else makes sense...
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Tuesday, 31 October 2000, at
12:34 a.m.
In Response To: Something else makes
sense... *PIC* (Phil)
It is a B5N1 not a B5N2 and a lot of
other photos clearly show the finish not silver PAINTED (in fact aluminum
painted) but NATURAL METAL FINISH (on relatively clean planes the different
panels show differences in shade between them).
For people accustomed to see NMF
birds, and I'm one of them because since I was born in 1954, I saw airplanes
over my home from Orly International airport about 30 to 50 meters high... And
particularly those from the time of piston engined liners for which it was
fashionable to use NMF (but for the roof of the fuselage in white) like
Lockheed L 1049 I can tell you that unless they are thoroughly cleaned and
polished they soon turn into a grayish matte appearance due top superficial
oxidation... So the relatively matte aspect of the Type 97 Model 1 on your pic
should not mislead you...
It is one of the difficulties we have
in ascertaining how the Pearl Harbor B5N2 were during the operation as the
dulled aluminum NMF which is quick to appear in operation will show about the
same way I3 or J3 paint will appear on the relatively poor quality shots we
have unless the high gloss aspect of the camouflage paint I3 or J3 shows
clearly by a clean mirror like reflection instead of the metallic reflection
of NMF... Particularly when we have no point of reference between two zones in
the photo exposed the same way to the light...
Anyway, the use of I3 or J3 paint on a
China incident B5N1 is hard to believe because those paints even didn't
existed at that time. The first example of this "offensive finish"
(while apparently not in its definitive form) appeared on the Zero first
prototype (A6M1 - 12 Shi #1) as a "dimly shining gray-green" (quote
from Hrikoshi's memories).
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 4:35
a.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
Yet another conundrum! Microscopic
examination of the small Hospital Kate artifact which I contacted you about
shows the gray-green to have been applied with the prior-applied red marking
masked off. The gray overlaps the red with a ragged edge. This, to me, argues
for field application. I'll have to examine the underside relic to determine
the sequence of application of the hinomaru/16350 on the 10th.
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 4:44
a.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (Greg Springer)
Great!
What are other important issues here
would be to establish if a primer was used and if the gray-green finish was
applied all over the aircraft or only on the bottom.
Or, perhaps, both possibilities were
true?
Could the hinomaru have been painted
on before the final paint coat at the factory?
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: George Crozier <ggc9_@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 5:05
p.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (James F. Lansdale)
Your question about painting at the
factory for IJN/A aircraft made me wonder if any factory/production line
photos exist of A/C production in Japan prior/during WWII? There seems to be
plenty of Allied/German documentation of factory scenes for their production
efforts. IE: Are there any pics of IJN A/C in the red primer as being built?
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 4:09
p.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (James F. Lansdale)
On the three confirmed and one
unconfirmed Hospital Kate skin artifacts there is no primer. All are
sufficiently bent and/or scraped to reveal the aluminum but no primer coat.
One artifact is definitely from the lower wing and the others are from upper
surfaces painted green over gray-green so I believe it was gray-green overall.
I have read someplace that hinomarus were applied prior to camouflage coats.
Can you recall the source for that contention? Examination of the
hinomaru-marked piece should yield an answer for this particular plane.
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 8:35
a.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (James F. Lansdale)
Just a few thoughts here:
The more we discuss of Kate finishes
at Pearl, the more I'm convinced that ALL the camouflage used was not factory
applied.
I think that it is fully confirmed by
Greg's last message on the research on surviving relics on the way the
gray-green was applied.
Before being embarked for the
"Hawaiian Operation" these planes were shore based at well equipped
IJNAF stations. It means that they should have been very well painted
"state of the art" (excepts for the primer) by qualified manpower
and adequate technical means with the lighter shade (offensive camouflage, J3
or I3), the same way David described for the Vals (by the way, if no
"red" primer was used, how about the presence of an aluminum paint
coat under I3 or J3 on Vals ?).If so, we have not yet solved an important
question: were all Kates already re-painted in these shades or did some were
still in NMF factory finish when they were embarked on the carriers and if
some were still NMF did some of them were painted on the undersurfaces only
with the lighter shade ???)
Then, and as an afterthought, a last
minute decision was taken to paint some defensive camouflage on the Kates
uppersurfaces when already aboard the carriers to increase their
survivability. Here a makeshift applied camouflage which seems to have been
peculiar in pattern for each carrier was applied with whatever paint (or
paints ?) available aboard by the crew with whatever mean of application they
had (which explains the ragged aspect of the green coat on the relics.
In short, it was first decided to
"unify" the aspect of the planes bound for the Hawaiian Operation
when they were yet on their training bases with the offensive camouflage (I3
or J3) then a defensive "complementary" camouflage was "carrier
applied" at the last moment.
This seems to be consistent when you
look at a famous photo of two kates allegedly taken later at Rabaul. The plane
on the foreground is cleanly finished in two tones and apparently brand new
(no unit identification but a provisional number on the tail) the plane in the
background is in distressed paint state as seen on Kumogata painted birds (no
primer used) and was probably a survivor of earlier times when Kates left the
factory in NMF...
I think, until green uppersurfaces
scheme was required by IJNAF headquarters (probably during early 1942 for any
plane but the fighters)not a single Kate left the factory otherwise than bare
metal with Hinomarus and antiglare panel...
Hold on here...
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 3:57
p.m.
In Response To: Re: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (James F. Lansdale)
Ok, I think Jim mentioned this, but
I'm not totally sure. If whatever gray we finally decide on was only applied
to the undersurfaces, the gray on the scan of the Kaga Kate relic would not be
there. Also, the excellent painting posted here would be erroneous, as the
exposed surface under the green would be natural metal, and not the gray as
depicted. Also, the implication that Kates would leave the factory with gray
undersurfaces and NMF everywhere else seems a bit odd to me. Therefore, it
seems that either the Kates were painted in overall gray (of some sort) and
had the green added later, or were painted green on top and gray on bottom at
the same time. Based on the fact that the gray seems "carefully
spray-painted" and the green "often crudely applied", maybe the
Kates left the factory in the overall gray, then had the green field applied.
If this is true, that means that between delivery and October 1941, there
would be a bunch of gray Kates running around. Hmm.
Re: Hold on here...
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 4:23
p.m.
In Response To: Hold on here... (Phil)
The ENTIRE aircraft was painted in
hairyokushoku!!!
The dark green on the upper surfaces
was field-applied later!!!
Exactly!
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 5:14
p.m.
In Response To: Re: Hold on here...
(James F. Lansdale)
That's what I was getting at, but from
some previous posts, that the gray was only applied to the undersurface, and
the green was applied over NMF to the uppersurfaces. This could be an
important weathering factor!
Re: "Field" Applied paint
for 7 Dec 1941
Posted By: Tim Hortman <thortman@epix.net>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at
12:47 p.m.
In Response To: "Field"
Applied paint for 7 Dec 1941 (David_Aiken)
Can we assume that the colors for the
aircraft at the different training locations would then be the same for that
particular field?
For example: Oita Field: Shokaku/Zuikaku
VALs should be the same color, but could possibly differ from the color used
on the Akagi/Kaga VALs at Tomitaka Field?
I think that this would give the
display a bit more realism if we do not use the same exact color for all of
our VALs.
Thanks again for all of your help!
So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dave@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at
6:25 a.m.
Over Thanksgiving weekend I'm going to
try to finish up the val that I'm working on for the project. So I need to
know if we have selected a color for our Vals (and any other aircraft) yet? If
not, can we?
Thanks in advance.
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Gary Barling <whitey@nrtco.net>
Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at
6:39 p.m.
In Response To: So, do we have a
color? (Dave Pluth)
The 29 October Lansdale/Springer
postings indicate further research to be done on Val colours, and a possible
paint mix based on Modelmaster "Armor Sand," FS30277. We seem to be
awaiting Greg Springer's newest paint formula (along with any other valid
research results). As with you, my Val is set for painting, and I look forward
to further guidance. And, as is fairly well known, I took three shots at
getting the colour right on my Nats Ki-45 this summer: I want the Val to be
completed right the first time!
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at
8:36 a.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Gary Barling)
I am currently working on 16350 for
Kaga B5N2s. Model Master Enamel Armor Sand is the base color. It needs a tiny
amount of black and some portion of gray-green added. I am also working on a
Val color for an artifact at Nimitz from Midway. The color is similar to the
Iida mix but darker and semi-gloss. It bears no resemblance to the Val colors
depicted in photos posted here by David Aiken and Jim Lansdale. I can make a
GUESS at those colors but I prefer to make mixes that I can match directly to
well-preserved artifacts. As I have to make a 180 mile round-trip to compare
the Val color it will probably take 60 days or more to get it correct. The
16350 mix is close to completion but I have lately been hampered by many
overcast days where I live. As soon as I get it right I'll post it here.
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at
6:08 p.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Greg Springer)
Please consider carefully the
identification of this artifact as representing a "Val color for an
artifact at (the) Nimitz from Midway."
There has been a lot of controversy
regarding the two aircraft which crashed either on Sand or Eastern Island.
Please consult the postings by AIKEN and MATLOSZ. We still do not know for
certain if these relics came from a Nakajima constructed A6M2 model 21 or the
Aichi D3A1 Val.
You stated that, "The color is
similar to the Iida mix but darker and semi-gloss." This could apply to a
color close in hue to the Nakajima factory color painted on Zeros or the color
applied to the Aichi Vals in 1941/42.
Are you certain the relic at the
Nimitz Museum is from a Val?
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at
4:16 p.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (James F. Lansdale)
Several weeks back it dawned on me
that the rivets on the grey-green artifact were round-headed. I recalled
reading that the Zero airframe was entirely flush-riveted. I contacted Ryan
Toews and Ryutaro Nambu, who in turn contacted Kurosu-san. Both sources tell
me that the only round-headed rivets on the Zero are found on the decking
within the canopy framework. This leads me to believe that the artifact is
from a type 99 kanbaku due to the exterior type color painted in conjunction
with round-headed rivets. The finish is semi-gloss and has red primer beneath
the top coat. My second reason is that the color of this artifact doesn't
match Tom Matlosz's callout for FS 14255 for his artifact, known now to be
from the Zero. BTW I have mailed six transparencies of B5N2 artifacts to Dave
Pluth for inclusion on your Pearl Harbor page.
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Tom Matlosz <slayer14@bellsouth.net>
Date: Monday, 20 November 2000, at
12:31 p.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Greg Springer)
I've worked the last two weekends on
trying to color match my Midway Zero relic. I too have my Val ready to paint
and at Jim's suggestion, the underside will be I3 to match my Zero piece. The
base enamel paint is Model Master Afrika Grunbraun (almost dead on FS 34440).
I'm very close after adding Interior Green (FS 34151) and a little Russian
Earth Brown. I should have a match on Turkey Day, if the sun's shining!
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at
3:46 p.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Tom Matlosz)
I am closing in on 16350 but it's not
perfect yet. Is the mix you are refering to the one for the Zero? Is your Zero
artifact high gloss or semi gloss?
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Tom Matlosz <slayer14@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at
9:06 a.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Greg Springer)
I would consider my Midway Zero
artifact to be semi-gloss. However, remember that this aircraft was involved
in a crash. The effect of the crash (oil and grime)are evident on portions of
the relic surface and also on the fabric specimen from the same airframe.
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at
9:49 a.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Tom Matlosz)
The two Midway artifacts at Nimitz are
not identified as to aircraft type. One has been heated as evidenced by coral
sand melted into the aotake inner coating. The paint on that artifact is
glossy and very close to 16160. I feel that the color was probably changed by
the heat as some of the aotake turned red. The other artifact has round-headed
rivets and is a semi-gloss color similar to but darker than the gray-green-tan
color of the Iida Zero. It has red primer which seems to be unusual for a Val
at this period but then again Zeros aren't supposed to have round
headed-rivets on the external airframe outside the canopy. Quite a mystery! So
is your mix for the Zero?
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Tom Matlosz <slayer14@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at
10:18 a.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Greg Springer)
Yes, I am matching the Zero artifact.
Did you get the email that I sent you with the photo of the artifact
surrounded by the FS color chips? What do you think?
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at
11:41 a.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Tom Matlosz)
No I didn't get that e-mail. A company
called Earthlink bought my ISP and I've had nothing but problems from them,
including e-mail never delivered from other folks. Time to change. Please
re-send the photo. Thanks!
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at
4:44 p.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Greg Springer)
You wrote,"I have mailed six
transparencies of B5N2 artifacts to Dave Pluth for inclusion on your Pearl
Harbor page."
Suupperr! You are truly the MAN!
When I get the analysis of the color
on the Pearl Harbor Val dive brake assembly from the Smithsonian's CAL, I will
post the information and the new color slides of this artifact as well. I am
very curious as to how this will turn out, since the dive brake assembly does
not have a primer coat and your artifact from Midway does!
Thank you for your contributions to
this cutting-edge research effort and sharing your findings.
Re: So, do we have a color?
Posted By: Clark Hollis <chollis@stewart.com>
Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at
1:05 p.m.
In Response To: So, do we have a
color? (Dave Pluth)
I'm doing a Zero for the PH display
and plan to use Greg Springer's special Testor's Modelmaster "Iida"
mix (gray) on it.
I guess, if I were doing a Kate or
Val, I'd use the Polly Scale acrylic RR Concrete color for the gray and maybe
something like Aeromaster acrylic Mitsubishi dark green for appropriate upper
surfaces on Kates. Those are my thoughts at this time. Always subject to
amendment, of course.
While we are talking, it wouldn't hurt
to decide on a blue-black for the cowlings and yellow, red and blue for the
tail markings and fuselage bands. And, what do we use for aotake in the
interior and wheel wells?
I think I do.
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at
2:09 p.m.
In Response To: Re: So, do we have a
color? (Clark Hollis)
I'm planning on using MM Dark Green
for uppersurfaces of all three of my Kates, and Concrete for the lower on two
of them (Akagi and Kaga). Once we decide on a "grey poupon" mix,
I'll use that for my Hiryu Kate. From looking at photos, the reflection from
Kate wheel wells suggets possibly aluminum. Personally, I'm most interested in
"grey poupon", the brown color used for the tails of Kaga Kates, the
blue/black engine cowling, and then on to markings.
Midway Zero Relic Colors *PIC*
Posted By: Tom Matlosz <slayer14@bellsouth.net>
Date: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at
11:15 a.m.
These are the color choices I have for
my Midway relic sample in the center. The closest match is FS 14255, but it is
not exact.
[Editors note: The image is not
replicated in the FAQs]
Re: Midway Zero Relic Colors
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at
4:22 p.m.
In Response To: Midway Zero Relic
Colors *PIC* (Tom Matlosz)
Taking into consideration the problems
of monitors, scans and photos, I would say that the color on your artifact is
real close to the 'round-headed rivet' Midway artifact at the Nimitz Museum.
Now I'm REALLY confused. You need to bring your artifact to Texas someday or I
need to perfect a mix for the Nimitz piece and send you a chip or vice-versa.
BTW the 'heated' Midway artifact is pretty close to 16160 in its present
condition.
Re: Midway Zero Relic Colors
Posted By: Tom Matlosz <slayer14@bellsouth.net>
Date: Monday, 27 November 2000, at
1:28 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Midway Zero Relic
Colors (Greg Springer)
Is the "round headed" Midway
artifact from the Eastern Island Zero or the Sand Island Val?
Re: Midway Zero Relic Colors
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Monday, 27 November 2000, at
5:59 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Midway Zero Relic
Colors (Tom Matlosz)
No one knows. The donor did not
specify. I'm going to try to find out if he is still alive and have the Nimitz
folks try to contact him. I'll keep you posted. Given its color, it seems as
if the artifact is from the same plane as yours. But the round-headed rivets
make it a mystery to me.