- Kate FAQs
Editors note:
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.
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: 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.
Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs *PIC*
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
The sketch below is from an unpublished photo,
showing just this portion of the fuselage with the pilot, Lt. Yoshitaka Mikami,
standing in the photo.
Note the BROWN tail and the tiny black mark for
the wooden rudder restraint (no one has mentioned THIS before!).
Note the command stripe does not have white
piping, tho' the fuselage stripes do.
This was a high-level attack aircraft in the
first wave which I identified by pilot in Stan Cohen's EAST WIND RAIN
[Missoula, MT: Pictorial Histories Pub; 1991 and later editions].
Of interest, EII-307 is an ex-Kaga plane which
also has a BROWN tail.
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 7:37 p.m.
In Response To: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs *PIC* (David_Aiken)
That's way neat! How certain is your source on
the brown? I am having a little trouble envisioning the brown, as it could be
like a primer, it could be green oversprayed on red, it could be green and
red, it could be brown as was seen on other planes in that era, etc... What's
your "feel" on it? Dark? Reddish? Olive-drabish? Green oversprayish?
Thanks for the neat share!
Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
Posted By: Tim Hortman <thortman@epix.net>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 11:29 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
(Rob Graham)
Here we go...
Just when I *thought* I had figured out what
color to paint my aircraft...
PLEASE keep this type of information coming
guys! Anyone have such info on Shokaku aircraft??
Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 6:22 p.m.
In Response To: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs *PIC* (David_Aiken)
Is this another brown-tailed Kate as well? Or
could the tail have been repainted red (as was the code [EII-307]) with the
original dark green background appearing as a stripe?
Maybe the ZUIKAKU crew repainted the red on top
of the green camouflage before the attack and then the color of the original
green camouflage (green and red make brown) bled through a thin coat of the
new red which would then make the red color look brown? The result could have
made the tail look brown!
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
Posted By: François P. WEILL
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 6:36
a.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs *PIC*
(James F. Lansdale)
I tend to fully agree with you...
I think that if any Kate at all was repainted
entirely I3 "mustard" color before the Hawaian Operation as it has
been written, they were probaly a minority...
My guess is that most of them remained in
peacetime livery, including the red tail for a while (this feature being
justcoming into a deletion process). I think that most Kates with the
so-called brown tail were in fact still carrying their red tails just before
going through the camouflage process...
Moreover, the aircraft identification sequence
was already painted on the red of the fin and rudder in white..
My theory is that the painters just avoided the
task of masking and kept a light airbrushing around the zone containing the
identification sequence, which, in turn was probably still red...
My question is what is your opinion about the
under surface color ? Coucld we reasonably think it could have been left
natural metal on such planes ?
Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 9:39
a.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
(François P. WEILL)
We have relics from three different Kates
brought down at Pearl Harbor. Several large pieces are in the Nimitz
Foundation Museum. They have been extensively analyzed by Greg SPRINGER. I
also own two samples. ALL have a base coat of hairyokushoku (gray-green). All
have some degree of dark green over-spray on the upper surfaces. NONE have any
evidence of brown paint and, at least these three, were NOT aluminum metal on
the lower surfaces.
There are a lot of opinions out there about
these colors. I have only worked on the pieces available and have not
speculated about these colors from b/w photos.
Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 10:56
a.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
(James F. Lansdale)
Could you precise two points please:
1 - From what carrier(s) did the planes that
provided the surving relics came from
2 - Is the Hairyokushoku coat present UNDER the
green paint
Thanks in advance
Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 12:11
p.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
(François P. WEILL)
You ask;
"1 - From what carrier(s) did the planes
that provided the surving relics came from?"
I need to check this out when I get home. Some
pieces are from the so-called "Hospital Kate" (Ithink from the AKAGI
or KAGA). The other relics are from two other sites. I am fairly certain all
were from the AKAGI or KAGA.
"2 - Is the Hairyokushoku coat present
UNDER the green paint"
Yes. All samples from the upper surfaces have
this undercoat of gray-green paint, as well as on one panel from the lower
wing, which has no dark-green paint and shows scratching from skidding on the
ground.
The gray-green coat has some gloss, but not the
dark green (on my samples). Greg SPRINGER can provide more details on the
Nimitz Foundation Museum samples.
Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 5:26
p.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
(James F. Lansdale)
So far, all artifacts at Nimitz have been said
by their donors to have come from the 'Hospital Kate'. As previously
described, the largest artifact was a glossy color close to 16350 but slightly
lighter in tone. It was oversprayed with a flat black-green ranging from 34079
through 34086 to 34084 depending on the thickness of the coat. I feel that
this artifact is possibly from the upper surface of the right outer wing which
survived the crash intact only to be stripped within hours by souvenir
hunters.The artifact from the underside of a wing with a portion of the
hinomaru is a match to 16350. Other artifacts show brush strokes and masking
of red markings and require more study. I'm taking a binocular 30X microscope
on my next visit. David Aiken says 'Hospital Kate' was from Kaga, coded
AII-35?. HTH.
Re: Kaga Hospital Kate [AII-353] *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 7:04
p.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
(Greg Springer)
Thanks for your analysis of the artifiacts of
the so-called "Hospital Kate." Below is one photo taken at the time
of the crash site. More photos have been promised by the family of a
photographer for a newspaper (Honolulu Observer ?) who took several photos of
this crash site. I will post them as soon as I receive them. The full call
number is alleged to have been [AII-353], a Kate from the KAGA.
I also received an e-mail today from a Canadian
militaria collecter who claimed to have the fin from another Kate with the
numerals [56] or [66] on the starboard side. He said that it came from a Kate
shot down at Pearl Harbor and that it was formerly owned by a retired USN
officer in California now deceased. I am going to try to obtain this artifact
for analysis.
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: Tis so
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 7:49
a.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
(François P. WEILL)
I was of that thought, but my thoughts were
changed by the sources of my mentors: H. Yoshimura, M. Asano, K. Owaki. Kaga
KATE tails are brown.
Simple Question
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 9:53
a.m.
In Response To: Re: Tis so (David_Aiken)
Not doubting the master here, but how do you
know it's brown from a b/w photograph?
Re: Tis so
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 8:28
a.m.
In Response To: Re: Tis so (David_Aiken)
Without disrespect to your Sensei, may I point
out the fact that a thin overspray of green on a red base will give you
exactly what an uncomplete mix of red and green will render: a kind of dirty
brown ... Is it contradictory in fact or only a different way to consider
things ?
Beside, What are the original source of Mrs H.
Yoshimura, M. Asano, K. Owaki ? You know that I never flatly ruled out the use
of brown on some Pearl Kates, but the other planes from the Zuikaku seemed to
have been painted green only on uppersurfaces and I sincerly doubt the crew
team used anything but whatever they had at hand...
Anyway, my main concern is still thezir
undersurfaces color, which seemed to be hard to determine.
Re: EII-307
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs *PIC*
(James F. Lansdale)
The EII-307 was an ex-Kaga plane with a brown
tail, per Replica, Jan 1990/July 1992.
According to researcher H. Yoshimura, there is
other evidence within Maru, Replica and Model Art monthlys which spoke of
swaps of aircraft between ships until the correct personnel or planes were in
the right spot.
B5N1s had a nine cylinder engine and could not
keep up with the B5N2, thus select Third/Fourth Koku Sentai carriers had a
nine plane B5N1 squadron and/or a nine plane B5N2 unit.
Re: EII-307 *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 7:32 p.m.
In Response To: Re: EII-307 (David_Aiken)
For the NOHARA version of EII-307 see below (c)
1990 by Shigeru NOHARA and with his permission.
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: EII-307
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 7:42 p.m.
In Response To: Re: EII-307 *PIC* (James F.
Lansdale)
Thanks for sharing these pics! Is it my
monitor, or is that BLUE on these birds? And is that a silver or light gray
underside? Was that red over camo or camo over red? I'd think red over camo.
Nohara has a steady hand, doesn't he??? :^)
Re: EII-307
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 7:50 p.m.
In Response To: Re: EII-307 (Rob Graham)
You asked,
"Is it my monitor, or is that BLUE on
these birds?"
"And is that a silver or light gray
underside?"
"Was that red over camo or camo over
red?"
Answers:
1. Dark green.
2. Hairyokushoku (gray-green).
3. Quien sabe?
Re: EII-307
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 8:17 p.m.
In Response To: Re: EII-307 (James F. Lansdale)
Thanks!
"Quien sabe?" Wakaeru nai!
What is this strange earthtalk, "quien
sabe?" This language was not in the Pleidian Dictionary of Earthtalk. I
did not even see it in the Pleidian Dictionary of Postal Terms.
Re: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 4:58 p.m.
In Response To: Kaga Brown Tailed KATEs *PIC* (David_Aiken)
Excellent drawing David!
Many of us are looking forward to your tome on
Pearl Harbor aircraft markings.
Until then we will will rely on this excellent
rendering from a black and white photograph which shows the true color of
these Kates! Hopefully we will someday be able to document a relic which
substantiates their interpretations.
Keep up the good work!
Kate AII-316 By NOHARA *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 7:27 p.m.
The profile below (c) 1990 by Shigeru NOHARA
and used with his permission is of the MIKAMI Kate which participated in the
attack on Pearl Harbor. Please compare with the David AIKEN drawing based on a
contemporary photograph of the same aircraft.
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
K. Osuo versus S. Nohara
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 6:24
a.m.
In the Model Art special #378 "Shinjuwan
Kogekitai" (Pearl Harbor Attack Units), there are several errors in the
artist renderings by S. Nohara. Some of these are differences between the
artist, S. Nohara and the text by author, K. Osuo. Many of these errors were
cited in the December 1991 Model Art Monthly. Many were not.
Knowledge of the crew names help confirm the
transfer of EII-307 to Zuikaku from Kaga. Other crew transfers are cited in K.
Osuo's text in "Part 1".
The error by S. Nohara in command stripe
difference is one of the problems with his artwork. Nohara correctly used the
command stripe style of Akagi and Hiryu, but INCORRECTLY used that style on
his renderings of Kaga.
Thus be aware of S. Nohara's artwork.
Re: EII-307
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 11:05
a.m.
How do they get out of this one? Well, Mickey
Rooney and friends all said, "I know!!! We'll have a SHOW!" Only
thing is, when Tonto and the Lone Ranger did it, it started a big following.
Perhaps you've heard of The Village People?
EII-307 and the other Kates mysteries
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 1:36 a.m.
In Response To: Re: EII-307 (Rob Graham)
First I wish to thank Jim, David and Greg for
their precious data on what is known about Pearl Kates.
I think we have to try to summarize what we
know about Kate finishes from 1939 to the aftermath of "the Hawaiian
Operation.
All B5N1 Model 1’s seem to have left the
factory in the peacetime livery of NMF with red tail and scalloped antiglare
panel. This seem congruent with what we know of the pre-1939 way to finish all
metallic planes of any model (Floatplanes and flying boats excepted).
A certain degree of mystery surrounds the early
B5N2 Model 3’s. As far as I was able to explore the problem, despite the
publication of some profiles, I’ve never seen a pic of this model in the
classical peacetime livery described earlier I this text. But I’m prepared
to give credit of their source to the illustrators. If so, the early Model 3’s
left the factory in NMF. By the way, this seem to be in accordance with the
fact described by Jim, David and Greg that the Pearl Kate relics do not have
any primer under the Hairyokushoku coat, as we know it was the usual practice
of the time for aircraft painted at unit level.
And here comes the first Kate mystery of them
all:
We know that from 1939 onwards the carrier
plane appearance was somewhat altered before the camouflage came back in its
"offensive" version. Aichi Type 99 Model 11 dive bombers came out of
the factory painted with aluminum dope (and no more NMF as earlier all
metallic types and their prototype) with a satin finish not unlike the one
carried by all so painted metallic seaplanes. Whatever is the exact nature of
this finish, Mitsubishi A5M4 Model 4 fighters were finished in a glossy
metallic coat which contrasted both with the appearance of earlier Models and
the new Zero Hairyokushoku finish. But the Kates seemed to have remained
immune from that change and be still produced in NMF despite reported
corrosion problems that obviously lead the IJNAF to a reversal in its policy
of finishing its carrier born all metallic planes toward the return of some
kind of protective coat, despite the use of Alclad treatment. WHY ?
Thus far, some Japanese sources quoted by Model
Art (which published the pic and one profile in volume 439) say that in
October 1941 the Kates destined to participate to the Hawaiian Operation were
completely painted in what was then described as IJN gray (so to say what we
now know as Hairyokushoku). They based their theory on the examination of one
pic of BI-323 from the Soryu which is indeed devoid of any red tail.
I’ve thoroughly examined this pic (better to
say its printed version). It is in no way a very good one technically
speaking, but it clearly represents this Kate with a very sullied paint job
(if a paint job was carried at all) which detracts from the pics of Zero and
Val pics in the same kind of finish taken at the same period. Frankly
speaking, I don’t see any material evidence this plane was painted at all.
The disappearance of the red tail is not a proof at all as we know they were
progressively eliminated from first line unit planes during this period. A NMF
plane being exposed to the elements and not particularly well cleaned during a
hard training period (and such was the case) will go matte and the
characteristic different panel shades will melt under an average coat of
surface oxidation. It is notorious that this will be rendered the same way on
a B&W pic than the Hairyokushoku (unless the incidence of light on this
paint will reveal its high gloss aspect).
What Jim and Greg say about the presence of an
Hairyokushoku coat UNDER the green makeshift camouflage of the "Hospital
Kate" from the carrier Kaga seems, on the contrary, to demonstrate that
this coat (with a characteristic glossy appearance) was present BEFORE the
green paint was applied… This tends to give credit to the theory that some
(if not all) Kates were entirely painted Hairyokushoku at an earlier date than
the application of some kind of makeshift defensive camouflage on their
uppersurfaces, just before the carriers left their moorings to go to Pearl.
But the examination of Fuchida’s plane pic (AI-301), taken during the later
operations in the Indian Ocean, seems to deny the idea all the planes were so
treated. The green paint (and even the antiglare one) is desperately peeling
revealing the aluminum almost at every place. But looking thoroughly at the
undersurfaces, I am unable to find any such signs… I don’t understand why,
if the unit applied Hairyokushoku paint was prone to peeling in the absence of
primer, nos such traces are visible on the undersurfaces of this plane (even
to a lesser degree) or does it mean that Fuchida’s plane was NEVER painted
on the undersurfaces ? If so, it means that not all the Kates were painted
Hairyokushoku before receiving the makeshift camouflage on their uppersurfaces…
Incidentally, it is one of the Kates that carried red paint on its tail (here
totally unmasked for a commander’s plane). Greg’s affirmation that the
relics he has examined had all Hairyokushoku paint on them is not
contradictory to this theory, as it seems that most of them came from Kate(s)
from the same carrier (Kaga) and we know that the way the Kates were finished
during Pearl Harbor was mostly individual at least from a carrier to another.
And here comes the second mystery:
WHERE ALL THE KATES TREATED HAIRYOKUSHOKU
DURING THE HAWAIIAN OPERATION ?
And the third one:
DID THOSE WHICH WERE, WERE FINISHED SO BEFORE
THE APPLICATION OF THE MAKESHIFT CAMOUFLAGE OR DURING THIS PROCESS ?
The next one is the recurrent and irritating
problem of the use of brown in the makeshift camouflage process.
To summarize the positions, Jim says that there
is no material evidence of the use of brown paint (unquestionably true). He
adds that the value of such a color as a sea camouflage is doubtful at best
(unquestionable, at least at short distance of vision too). Greg says the
relics at hand has no sign of brown paint (fact). David said once he has
witnesses by some crew members of the use of brown paint and thinks now that
not only the Second carrier Div. Planes had such a color applied (those planes
seem to have a mottled camouflage on their uppersurfaces) but that most of the
tails of planes from other carriers which appears on the pics to be finished
in a lighter shade are so treated. He says this is the opinion of its Japanese
mentors. Some Japanese sources say that the Shokaku planes (notorious for
their specific defensive camouflage strictly limited to the horizontal
uppersurfaces) were indeed mottled in both green and brown. Others (even
published by the same company: Model Art) incline toward the use of green only…
In the absence of material evidence, it is
impossible to get the right answer. But some questions need to be answered and
can be answered at least. The most important one concerns the primary sources
from which Japanese researchers’opinion on the use of brown originated.
If they based their opinion on the examination
of the pics we saw, I must say I’m not convinced. Jim’s explanation, based
on an irregular application of green (confirmed by the observation of relics
bearing such irregularities and traces of brush application, source Greg
Springer) is sufficient to explain the tonal differences on the pics.
Whatsoever, I’m not completely convinced
either by the rationale of Jim on the inefficiency of brown as a sea
camouflage to rule out its use (at least for the Second Carrier Div. Planes
and, perhaps, the Shokaku planes). Why ? … Just because no one at the lower
level of the carrier crew knew the target at the time the planes were
camouflaged and because this color combination was used on naval planes (even
floatplanes) during the "China Incident" as a mean to escape at low
level over land masses … And finally, because to avoid a leak on the real
nature of the final target was certainly more important to the brasses of the
Fleet than the relative inefficiency of a defensive camouflage for planes that
were obviously so camouflaged as an afterthought. By the way, the shape
breaking effect (whatever was the colors employed) has been demonstrated as
more efficient than a solid coat at a distance…
As I said before, I’m much less convinced
when it goes to the use of brown paint on tails of other Carrier Divs. planes.
Unless an unquestionable primary source demonstrates it.
The use or not of brown is the last but not the
smaller or either the most minor mystery of the Kates at Pearl. BROWN OR NOT
BROWN THAT IS THE QUESTION …
Re: EII-307 and the other Kates mysteries
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 8:20 a.m.
In Response To: EII-307 and the other Kates
mysteries (François P. WEILL)
In the fifth paragraph, you asked :
"But the Kates seemed to have remained
immune from that change and be still produced in NMF despite reported
corrosion problems that obviously lead the IJNAF to a reversal in its policy
of finishing its carrier born all metallic planes toward the return of some
kind of protective coat, despite the use of Alclad treatment. WHY?"
Might I suggest that during this period of the
30's, Alclad was a new technology and new material. Despite the good
properties and promise of Alclad for corrosion protection, in
practice/service, Alclad was found to be excellent for scratch-protection, but
it's "soft" property made it impractical to prevent abrasion
resistance/removal from mechanics or fuel hoses, etc. rubbing against the
skin. Thus the Japanese may have quickly changed their opinion on the need for
primer AFTER in-service experience showed that high abrasion NMF skins started
corroding once the Alclad was rubbed off. Paint/primer is much more durable a
finish for abrasion resistance.
Just the opinion of a mechanical engineer who
works on (painted) RC135 aircraft.
Re: EII-307 and the other Kates mysteries
Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 10:44
a.m.
In Response To: Re: EII-307 and the other Kates
mysteries (Mike Quan)
Mike I fully agree with your theory as to why
the IJNAF adopted Alclad and then, founding its shortcomings in practical
service...
But my concern is that if they asked the
manufacurers to provide thje necessary measure to cope with them, then why the
Kates were the ONLY ones in the carrier born trio (Type 96 Fighter, Type 99
Dive bomber and Type 97 Torpedo bomber)seemingly not to see the aspect they
were delivered from the factory modified in some way and stood in the NMF
alclad finish ? If you prefer why no measure of any kind to cope with the
corrosion problem discovered in practical service was applied in the precise
case of the Kates ?
Thanks for your input
Re: Kates mysteries
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 10:59
a.m.
In Response To: Re: EII-307 and the other Kates
mysteries (François P. WEILL)
I theorize that Nakajima was the 'pioneer' in
introducing Alclad to the Japanese aircraft industry, and that the B5N was the
leader in introduction of this material into service use. Timing if you will,
led the Kate to experience this phenomena that affected it's factory paint
finish.
The benefits to the performance of the Kate due
to lower gross weight from not having paint would be considerable since the
Kate, among the three types mentioned, had the lowest hp/weight ratio. Despite
the large wing, a Kate probably had a tough time lifting that 800+ kg torpedo
or that 800 kg AP bomb with less than 1000 hp.
Re: EI-306 is not same as AII-35x *PIC*
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 6:51 a.m.
In Response To: EII-307 and the other Kates
mysteries (François P. WEILL)
BOTH B5N2 undersurface colors revealed on this
site have been collectively called "Hairyokushoku" in various
postings. Be aware they are distinctly different. This term has also been used
for the color referenced on the Zero 21 samples which scans show yet more
differences, explained by K.Owaki as J3 over I3. May we be careful in the
blanket use.
The AII-35x Kaga sample in Mr Lansdale's scan
(28 Sep 00, 4:58 AM) is the SAME as that from AII-356, another Kaga plane.
This shows quite a dark grayish look in the scans somewhat different from the
greenish J3 seen on Zero and VAL samples posted on the General Board on 13 Sep
00 4:17AM; 13 Sep 00 8:14PM; 14 Sep 00 10:06AM.
The I3 sample below is from EI-306 or EI-302,
both recovered from the Indespensible Reef after the Coral Sea Battle. This
Shokaku khaki sample shows a different color than the Kaga samples.
Of interest, this sample of metal framework
with fabric covering is from the inboard portion of the starboard flap. The
layers of color are:
(1) Red Primer
(2) Aluminum paint (for a NMF scheme)
(3) the I3 Khaki overall upper/lower surface
(4) then a green upper surface (Shokaku had two
different green schemes by the time of the crash)
(5) "don't walk" red striping on top
surface
Use of colors found are instrumental in
identification of aircrew from the Pearl Harbor crash sites, a long term
project of the Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc. The Kaga VAL samples
posted are in the same I3 color as the EI-306/EI-302 sample below. They are
from a VAL which crashed in Middle Loch, but NOT the VAL that crashed into USS
Curtiss -as Mr Lansdale once suggested- which was painted in J3.
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: EII-307 and the other Kates mysteries *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 4:58 a.m.
In Response To: EII-307 and the other Kates
mysteries (François P. WEILL)
Thank you for your thorough analysis of what
may have been the colors of Kates before and during the Pearl Harbor attack. I
cannot speculate on the possible use of "brown" other than what I
have said previously. Monochromatic film is extremely difficult to interpret
as to colors used.
The exception is always possible. According to
the laws of probability, it is expected that one would encounter the most
common colors and systems of camouflage on the few remaining relics rather
than the exceptional. It is not at all impossible that one would find an
example of the exception. It is only highly improbable.
As we gather more physical evidence, the
general patterns of colors used will become more established on a broader
base. However, we may never have a complete record of the more rare and the
exceptional.
BTW. This is the reason that a complete
catalogue of the IJAAF aircraft camouflage schemes may never be possible since
it is evident from photographs that the permutations of camouflage schemes for
most IJAAF aircraft are so great. Their colors may have been equally varied.
Below is a scan of one fragment from the
so-called "Hospital Kate." Greg SPRINGER may provide us with more.
Thank you again for your input and welcome
back!
Re: AII-311command stripe style vs fact
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 8:17 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Kate (Mike Quan)
Note the STYLE of command stripe for Kaga is
totally across the vertical surfaces, like those for Shokaku, Zuikaku and even
Ryujo. As S. Nohara chose the incorrect style command stripe for his artwork,
this should send warning signals about "fiction" running thru your
mind.
Be also aware that, according to S. Nohara,
AII-318 supposed to be piloted by Lt M. Suzuki. Lt Suzuki's body was recovered
from AII-356. Are you getting a pattern of S. Nohara's artwork: "error
does not compute"?
Re: Nohara fiction vs fact?
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 8:25 a.m.
In Response To: Re: AII-311command stripe style
vs fact (David_Aiken)
Thanks for your input. I agree that perhaps Mr.
Nohara's artwork may not be completely accurate. I (& I suspect many
others, not just here on the j-aircraft site) will continue to anxiously await
publication of your PH tome with it's definitive (& defensible) facts and
illustrations!
Re: Nohara fiction vs fact?
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 8:39 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Nohara fiction vs fact?
(Mike Quan)
It is not easy to come down on S. Nohara's
artwork as he DOES have some GREAT jewels in that volume, thanx to the author,
K. Osuo's research.
Yet, when Nohara shows EI-141 with a command
stripe, and the beautiful video:
"'Requiem of Silver Wing': Japanese
Military Aircraft, Navy" from Suncrown Films and distributed by Kokusho
Kankokai Company...
has the SAME EI-141 -WITHOUT a command stripe-
taxi right across the screen... some things just don't jive.
Re: Nohara fiction vs fact?
Posted By: Clark Hollis <chollis@stewart.com>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 10:19
a.m.
In Response To: Re: Nohara fiction vs fact? (David_Aiken)
Could it be, that the video was filmed before
the command stripe was applied?
BTW, I think that you may have intended to use
the word "jibe", rather than "jive".
Keep up the good research. I'm really looking
forward to your book.
Yet another Kate q. (I'm sorry!)
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2000, at 12:46 a.m.
This one should be easy compared to the J3/I3
debate. In the pics of the crashed PH Kate, the underwing numeral upon close
inspection seems to be possibly hand-painted. I would like other opinions as I
am thinking that brushing it on may be easy (compared to other methods) and
possibly more authentic. Thanks again.
Re: Yet another Kate q. (I'm sorry!)
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thursday, 5 October 2000, at 8:35 p.m.
In Response To: Yet another Kate q. (I'm
sorry!) (Phil)
This method has worked well for me in the past.
Draw the numerals with a drafting pen on paper. It should be easy to do it in
scale using the model wing as a reference. Then, using a good quality copier,
print them onto Walther's clear decal film. It comes in 8.5 X 11 inch sheets
and works very well in copiers. I use the office copier where I work (when no
one's around!). Some commercial copy services won't let you put decal film in
their machines. After making the copy, spray the sheet with clear gloss
because sometimes the toner will not bond well to the clear sheet. Make
several extra numerals in case of possible problems. Do that by copying your
original drawing several times and doing a paste-up. With an 8.5 X 11 inch
sheet there is LOTS of room. IHTH.
Making Decals
Posted By: Steve Nelson <snelson@battlecreek.net>
Date: Thursday, 5 October 2000, at 11:38 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Yet another Kate q. (I'm
sorry!) (Greg Springer)
I've also discovered that you can run decal
film through a laser printer (since it's a thermographic process like a
photocopier.) You might be able to make the letters with a drawing program. As
was mentioned, you'll need to coat it with something (I use MicroScale Liquid
Decal Film.)
Just my .02
Re: Kate questions not to be sorry about!
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2000, at 7:53 a.m.
In Response To: Yet another Kate q. (I'm
sorry!) (Phil)
Yes, while it appears that there was no
'standardized style' to PH Kate underwing serial numbers, I would hazzard a
guess that unless you are of a steadier hand than most of us, hand-painting
the large, very thin stroked numerals would require some experience. Failing
to find decals for a Kate, I would carefully mask off the numeral or fabricate
a tape stencil and spray the black on.
FWIW,
Mike Q
PS - Frisket, a proprietary name for a
translucent masking medium, is available in art stores in 8x11.5 sheets. It is
useful for doing custom stencils, as you can layout the pattern on the
adhesive-backed film. The Tamiya tape made of rice paper is also good for
making stencils.
Pearl Harbor Kate Colors *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2000, at 4:24 a.m.
Greg SPRINGER has done an excellent and
thorough study of the so-called "Hospital Kate" relics in the NIMITZ
Museum Collection. Soon he will post the results of his study and give the
most accurate comparison of these relic colors to the FS 595 Color Standards.
The view below is from a small section of upper
wing fragment from the same wreckage. Please note the dark green over-painting
on the lighter gray-green base coat. Other fragments from the same wreckage
reveal that this lighter gray-green color (close to FS-16350) was applied to
the lower wing surfaces as well. No primer is in evidence
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: Hosp = AII-356 Kate undersurface
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2000, at 7:43 a.m.
In Response To: Pearl Harbor Kate Colors *PIC*
(James F. Lansdale)
The original scan given by Mr Lansdale appeared
quite a dark gray, but this new scan is almost a (US) dark olive drab. This is
quite compatible with the scan that I just received from a Pearl Harbor
survivor of his piece from AII-356...almost a (US) dark olive drab. Much
darker than the other relics seen. Wonder what the Japanese designation is?
Re: Chromaticity: Three Pearl Harbor Relics
Pictured *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 9:56 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Chromaticity (David_Aiken)
In order to assist you in your research on
chromaticity (and knowing of your interest in Pearl Harbor) I have posted the
following photo of three Pearl Harbor relics.
They are pictured together for the first time
since 7 December 1941. None has been altered in anyway (other than the writing
on the "Hospital Kate" fragment). All three have been kept inside
away from the elements since they were collected in December of 1941!
Top: IIDA Zero fragment from the lower wing
(flap).
Middle: "Hospital Kate" fragment (top
wing area)
Bottom: NISHIKAICHI Zero rudder fabric.
Make your comparisons and enjoy!
[Editors note: The images are not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: Chromaticity: Pearl Harbor Relics Together
For
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 2:53 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Chromaticity: Three Pearl
Harbor Relics Pictured *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
Does the Nishikaichi fabric have a green tint
and no tan component? On my monitor it looks like the color of an artifact
Ryan Toews has from a type 32 from Ballale for which I am currently working on
a paint mix.
Re: Chromaticity: Pearl Harbor Relics Together
For
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 4:17 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Chromaticity: Pearl Harbor
Relics Together For (Greg Springer)
The fabric is definetly more toward the
"gray-green" end of the color variations of hairyokushoku than
toward "amber." There is a lot of grime on parts of the surface and
it is slightly more "gray" than the "green" tint found on
the metal surfaces of the IIDA relics. This color is more common on Mitsubishi
products than those of Nakajima built Zeros (which have a decidedly more
"amber" shade on the metal surfaces and more "blue-gray"
on the fabric).
BTW. The present, and very preliminary,
conclusions are that this is true due to the paint type used to treat the
fabric surfaces of all Zeros regardless of manufacture. It is not uncommon to
find two colors on these hairyokushoku Zeros. The fabric surfaces were not
always overpainted with the same paint used on the metal surfaces!
Re: Chromaticity: Pearl Harbor Relics Together
For
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 9:11 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Chromaticity: Pearl Harbor
Relics Together For (James F. Lansdale)
I suppose it would be speculation at this
point, but I have read somewhere (Francillon?) that Japan's WWII aviation
manufacturing was largely a cottage industry and there were several
subcontractors for each of the many parts. I wonder (just theorizing and
speculating at this point) if the variances on the rudders could have been due
to the different subs?
Also, the paint used on the different surfaces
would have been likely a bit different (thin application of lacquer vs. a
thick app, etc.). I also wonder if some of the fabric covered parts varied due
to re-finishing in the field.
My grandfather was a pilot and A&P mechanic
(it helped to be both in the '30s) and told of a lady's cow that got out and
ate the fabric off of a plane (not ALL of it) because of the sweetness in the
lacquer dope. If one were to make a case, I'd be easily convinced that the
heavier lacquer would make a slightly different look than what was found on
the metal parts.
BTW, my grandmother said my grandfather could
sew better than she could (she was GOOD, made a lot of quilts by hand) due to
his experiences as an A&P guy in Honduras for (then upstart) TACA in 1932,
working on Ford Tri-Motors and DC-3s, I recall.
A generation slipping away.
Re: Chromaticity *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 9:19 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Chromaticity (David_Aiken)
You wrote: "However, I note in the
difference between the "Hospital Kate" sample -as scanned when
purchased- and the condition of the sample -as scanned 20 Oct 4:24AM-, that
wholesale sanding has been done in a seach for the hue."
I am sorry to disappoint your conjecture, but I
can most assuredly state that I have in NO WAY "messed" with this
relic. The only problem with the scans are the brightness settings or the
monitor you are using. Neither Greg SPRINGER nor I have made the slightest
change on these priceless relics. Gosh, where in the world did you get such a
notion???
The only relics I would polish would be those
which were heavily oxidized after being found years after their loss (like
your "Aichi" labeled "Pearl Harbor Val" relic). I have
never polished the IIDA, NISHIKAICHI, HIRANO, or "Hospital Kate"
relics. What you see, or think you see, are the way they were and are!
For a view of the appearance of the relic today
(and the way it was on the day I received it) check the photo below. IHTH your
analysis a little bit more.
And, I do thank you for your continued expert
input and contributions to our understanding of how we view color. Seeing is
believing!
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: Close up scan vs camera
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 10:26 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Chromaticity *PIC* (James
F. Lansdale)
The close up 20 Oct 4:24AM scan of the
"Hospital Kate" item made by Mr Lansdale [a medium-dark olive drab]
vs the 20 Oct 9:19AM camera shot [a gray] made by the original owner for sale
on the web, show a color difference.
The sample in the detail shows wear which does
appear "sanded", yet shows in the original owner's photo. IF the
point of reference of the selected FS595 came from the thinner area, problems
in Chroma conflict with a truer visual reflectance responce.
As to the scan sent to me of the color of
AII-356 undersurface being nearer the color of Mr Lansdale's close up scan
[its sister "Hospital KATE"], they have the same reflectance in the
scans. The owner of the AII-356 item gave the term "olive drab" in
reference to the piece, which gives a different, but perhaps more objective,
unbiased viewpoint, than the FS number suggested by the 20 Oct 4:24AM posting.
I can see the reason of the term "olive drab" in both the close up
scan and the AII-356 scan. The similarity in the two scans does give support
to the reliability of scans despite their problems. The cited FS595 number,
however, has a reflectance quite different which suggests possible problems in
the observation.
As to the "real world" of being on
the scene, I have taken the color vision tests to know how my eyes deviate
from the "average human perceiver"....
Re: Hosp = AII-356 Kate undersurface
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2000, at 9:17 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Hosp = AII-356 Kate
undersurface (David_Aiken)
The real problem with scans and photos is that
they are NOT the actual color of the subject in real time or "one hour on
either side of prime meridian."
This is the reason to post the actual FS or
Munsell color comparisons. The "Hospital Kate" relic is NO WHERE
near "dark olive drab" but is much closer to FS-16350. This relic
has been analyzed and the thorough analysis done is better than any computer
monitor version of the scan of the relic as posted by me.
Show & Tell Time: Visual Acuity Test No.1 *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
Having little else to do on a lazy Saturday
afternoon (other than some yard work), I decided to have some fun!
Below is a scan of the "Hospital
Kate" relic we have been discussing all day today! I have thrown in a
piece of my FS 595B Color Standards Color Fan for FS-16350 as a comparison for
a visual acuity test.
I would like to conduct a survey....
1) All in favor of the lighter color on the
relic being close to FS-16350 say "Aye!"
2) All who say that they are "not even
close" say "Nay!"
Next weekend, Dave PLUTH will post the results
of the survey (provided the new software he just installed to record your
responses works properly!!!). (;>)
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: Show & Tell Time: Visual Acuity Test
No.1
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dave@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 9:53 p.m.
In Response To: Show & Tell Time: Visual
Acuity Test No.1 *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
Basically I've seen all the samples you have
and all the samples that Ryan has and I'm a believer. It's hard when faced
with hard evidence to continue to disagree, especially after seeing the
samples for myself. Granted, I did see droplets of J3 in your driveway when I
was there, but that aside, I will go so far to say, Zeros (and most other
Japanese aircraft) where not painted gray, they were J3 (because I can't spell
the other thing, hell, I can't even pronounce it!). There I said it.
Doubt, disbelieve or whatever about the color,
but the facts are the facts.
I guess that's an Aye. Now can we talk about
markings or ANYTHING else?
Re: Visual Acuity For J3
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 5:08 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Show & Tell Time:
Visual Acuity Test No.1 (Dave Pluth)
Thank you for your testimony!
You stated, "Granted, I did see droplets
of J3 in your driveway when I was there."
No they were NOT J3! They were spots of paint
which match the Ryutaro NAMBU and Greg SPRINGER mixes for the IIDA Zero color!
I was painting some aluminum pieces to sell on J-Dot Com to anyone who wanted
a genuine and authentically reproduced facsimile of a purported Zero relic
from one of the Hawaiian islands thought to be near Pearl Harbor!(;>)
You futher continued, "but that aside, I
will go so far to say, Zeros (and most other Japanese aircraft) where not
painted gray, they were J3 (because I can't spell the other thing, hell, I
can't even pronounce it!)."
"Hairyokushoku" (gray-green) is the
term used by Jiro HORIKOSHI to describe the color of the Mitsubishi A6M1 Zero
prototype. The color and finish of the Mitsubishi production A6M2s, A6M3 model
32s, early production A6M3 model 22s and all undersurfaces for the later
production A6M3 model 22s and early production A6M5s was a color very close to
FS-16350/24201, whatever it was called.
Early production A6M2s produced by Nakajima may
have had a more "amber" color (more like FS-16160).
J3 was a color developed at Yokosuka in
December of 1941 as a "test color" to be applied to the Zero and,
unlike the earlier paints which were glossy, J3 had no gloss. It would appear,
from the description of J3 in YoKu Report No.0266 and a color chip (which
NOHARA-san stated was similar to FS-36357) that J3 may have been decidedly
more gray than the earlier glossy gray-green color (whatever it was called!).
Before the outstanding work of Katsushi OWAKI,
who located the Official Japanese Color Standards: 5 February 1945," I
speculated that the earlier glossy gray-green was called J1. This was NOT
correct!
The Japanese color numbering system came in to
use during the war and we do not have a precise designation for the early Zero
color. According to the "Official Japanese Color Standards" and the
OWAKI-san compilation, the following colors for IJN aircraft were in use in
1945 for the so-called "grays," "gray-greens," "light
olive-grays," or, even, so-called "ameiro."
Color No.2-3/IJNavy J1/(Munsell 7.5 G 3.3/1)
Color No.2-4/IJNavy L3/FS-35164 (Munsell 10 B
4.4/2.8)
Color No.2-5/IJNavy K3/FS-34158 (Munsell 5 BG
5.5/2)
Color No.2-6/IJNavy J3/FS-36350 (Munsell 7.5 Y
5.5/1.5)
Color No.3-3/IJNavy I3/FS-34201 (Munsell 5 Y
4.8/2)
The two colors/finishes which did not turn up
on the 5 February 1945 list include the early glossy version of hairyokushoku
(FS-16350) and the more amber-toned varient (FS-16160). C'est la vie!
Then you concluded, "Now can we talk about
markings or ANYTHING else?"
I can only add a resounding, AMEN BROTHER!!!
Re: Mr. Nohara's impression of J3
Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 11:13 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Visual Acuity For J3 (James
F. Lansdale)
I don't seem to have the color Mr. Nohara
mentions (5357) on my FS fan. Is there a typographical error in your posting,
Jim, or is it a chip found only on FS 595-A?
Re: Mr. Nohara's impression of J3
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 11:16 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Mr. Nohara's impression of
J3 (Tom Hall)
My typo. The color described by NOHARA-san was
FS-36357. I'll correct my posting!!!
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 9:16 p.m.
In Response To: Show & Tell Time: Visual
Acuity Test No.1 *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
This is very close, IMHO. I am a LITTLE color
deficient in the blue-yellow range, which is less common than the red-green
range. Color deficiency was not bad enough to exclude me from any military
duty, though; vision good enough to qualify for any MOS
Re: AYE!
Posted By: Amos H. Terrell <Aterrell@KScable.com>
Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 11:08 p.m.
In Response To: AYE! (Rob Graham)
Mark up another aye!
16350 is undercoat, but the OD exterior?
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 9:19 a.m.
From my various postings it is quite evident
that I speak about the exterior coat, not the undercoat refered by Mr
Lansdale. This exterior coat, seen as an olive drab by the Pearl Harbor
Survivor in his unweathered, sheltered piece of AII-356, has yet to be
addressed. It is THIS which he defends as the exterior color. Thus Mr Pluth
and Mr Graham, I appreciate your patience about the "Hospital KATE"
sample.
Re: 16350 is undercoat, but the OD exterior? *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 9:45 a.m.
In Response To: 16350 is undercoat, but the OD
exterior? (David_Aiken)
You write," This exterior coat, seen as an
olive drab by the Pearl Harbor Survivor in his unweathered, sheltered piece of
AII-356, has yet to be addressed."
Please post a scan of this relic showing this
color so that we all may see "whereof thou speaketh!"
We are not able to address comments on anything
not seen!
P.S. Was the color like this image which has a
piece of fabric on which is written "Midway?"
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: OD exterior color sought (again)
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 1:36 p.m.
In Response To: Re: 16350 is undercoat, but the
OD exterior? *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
Exterior coat of the "Hospital KATE"
sample (close up) scan is identical to the AII-356 scan [stated in the 20 Oct
7:43AM posting]. I do NOT have permission to flaunt the AII-356 scan on the
web. I do cherish and respect my sources.
Thus I continue to seek the FS595 equal for
this "dark" exterior color in the "Hospital KATE" relic,
which is thus noted as "dark" -compared to the "light"
undersurface color [FS16350] cited in the 21 Oct 12:40PM posting. This
"dark" exterior color is cited by my Pearl Harbor survivor source as
olive drab, but he does not have a FS595... thus for 2.5 days I've spun my
wheels and tried all our patience by reasking the same 'duh' question.
Gomen nasai
David Aiken
PS: My scan of the EI-306 relic, found after
the Battle of Midway, shows I3... not the "dark" exterior color
sought on the "Hospital KATE".
Re: OD or Dark Green/Why Didn't You Say So?
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
In Response To: Re: OD exterior color sought
(again) (David_Aiken)
You declared, "Thus I continue to seek the
FS595 equal for this 'dark' exterior color in the 'Hospital KATE' relic, which
is thus noted as 'dark' -compared to the 'light' undersurface color [FS16350]
cited in the 21 Oct 12:40PM posting. This 'dark'; exterior color is cited by
my Pearl Harbor survivor source as olive drab."
It has finally penetrated my thick head that
what you really wanted is the FS for the darker color! (:o) I thought you were
doubting the accuracy of the lighter color of the relic on which you said it
appeared "that wholesale sanding has been done in a seach for the
hue!"
Well, my piece of the "Hospital Kate"
does not have an exact color match on the FS-595B Fan. The closest match I
have is a color which I have been calling "dark green" or somewhat
between FS-34052 and FS-34079. I can give you an exact Munsell reading if you
have access to the Munsell chips. Let me know because I would like to help you
out.
Re: OD or Dark Green/Why Didn't You Say So?
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
In Response To: Re: OD or Dark Green/Why Didn't
You Say So? (James F. Lansdale)
Let me know the Munsell color and I'll make a
chip for all of us!
Re: Thank you
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
In Response To: Re: OD or Dark Green/Why Didn't
You Say So? (James F. Lansdale)
The "Hospital KATE" relic purchased
by Mr Lansdale has had some wear, mistaken as sanding in the close-up. This
"wear" sector shows the undercoat of FS*6350 [for those unfamiliar
with FS595, the initial number has a special meaning: "1" is for
gloss; "2" = semi-gloss; "3" = flat/non-spec].
Thanx to Mr Lansdale's 22 Oct 3:18PM posting,
we have a tentative FS595 equivalent of FS*4052 to FS*4079 for the dark
uppersurface of KAGA B5N2 KATE relics, as seen in one of today's protected
samples! We await confirmation of Greg Springer's samples and, hopefully, my
AII-356 source. What is the Japanese designation?
Re: OD Exterior Color On Kate Artifact
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 2:35 p.m.
In Response To: Re: OD exterior color sought
(again) (David_Aiken)
The large Nimitz artifact with the variable
thickness flat top coat of black green ranges from 34084 to 34086 as observed
last spring. The donor recently told Nimitz curators that it is from the
Hospital Kate. As a note of interest, that donor was child living at PH during
the attack. His father was a Naval officer. Nimitz policy does not allow me to
reveal the names of donors. Since then two other artifacts have been found in
storage. One is the small artifact from the minesweeper Vireo crewmember also
stated to be from the Hospital Kate. The other is a crumpled piece with an
uncertain provenance which I have not yet shared with anyone. It has a
uniformly thick coat of what I would call olive drab over 16350 as does the
Vireo piece. Unfortunately I have not yet matched these two to my fan deck.
Gomen nasai. When I have done so I'll post the results. When I have re-photoed
these artifacts I will supply them to be posted on the Pearl Harbor Artifacts
page.
Mystery surrounds another Kate artifact which
was on display for over 20 years in the old Pearl Harbor display of the
museum. It has somehow disappeared during the expansion of the exhibits.
Hopefully it will resurface to help our analysis.
Here's to research!
Re: "as does the Vireo piece"
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 3:12 p.m.
In Response To: Re: OD Exterior Color On Kate
Artifact (Greg Springer)
Mahalo nui loa! Domo Arigato! Gosh, I
appreciate your understanding of this effort and your access to the Nimitz
collection. Thank you!
Re: IJN Kate Aircraft Markings
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 10:59 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Nats Pearl Harbor Project:
IJN Aircraft Markin (Tim Hortman)
Thanks for the morale boost Tim!
Regarding your request for unusual trivia, Kate
builders should be aware to look at the top of the engine cowling. It appears
(some) Kates carried a fixed wire array that appears to be a device used to
boresight the offset when making a torpedo run. Funny thing is that some
photos show this device mounted on PH bomb-carrying Kates! This device is SO
delicate, that a very clear picture must be found to see it - it is not too
readily visible except on a crystal clear photograph.
Re: IJN Kate Aircraft Markings
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 11:07 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Kate Aircraft Markings
(Mike Quan)
This wire arrangement was on all KATEs in the
attack (and later). It was of help in the torpedo run.
The unique stripes on AII-356 main wing, shown
in the SCALE MODELS (Japan) photos, are different than regular three plane
formation stripes on leader NELLs, KATEs, etc. These were meant for the
special high-level bomb drops in a formation of FIVE planes. BUT they are on a
torpedo leader's plane, which reveals that dual attack training was
accomplished by all leader planes.
Kate stripes and numbers
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 3:30 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Kate Aircraft Markings
(David_Aiken)
I'm beginning to wonder about the kinds of
stripes seen on Kates. Which ones had the wing stripes? Also, did they have
the drift indicator (aim-off?) stripes on the tail? Also, where all did they
have the a/c number? I know about under the wings, but how about on the
underside of the cowl? Or the landing gear doors? And, what are we going to do
about the torpedo? How is it painted, and are there any good pics of how it
was actually carried? (Since Hasegawa can't get it right.)
AKAGI Kate Painting [AI-318] by James HOLLOWAY
*PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 6:57 a.m.
Here is an beautiful rendering by James
HOLLOWAY of an AKAGI B5N2 Kate (perhaps a Pearl Harbor attack veteran) in a
different scheme. The photograph he worked from was taken from a newly
discovered newsreel film. It is clear and sunlit. The unusual color scheme of
the wings is probably due to their having been replaced with uncamouflaged
variants after the original wings had been camouflaged and removed for some
reason. Only four bombs were carried by this aircraft as seen in the original
photograph.
James HOLLOWAY, anticipating some comments
writes:
"One person has pronounced the painting
inaccurate and that I was 'mislead by some fault in the processing of the
film' even though he's not seen the photo from the newsreel I used.
I could understand a misinterpretation if I had
used a single B/W print, but this was a complete closeup pan on a clear day.
In no way were the outside wings in sun glare. In places where the sun did
glint you could see paint chipping on the light coloured areas showing the
natural metal below. I believe this was footage from the Indian Ocean
Operation.
Could the wings have been damaged at Pearl and
replaced with gray/green ones? This plane had NO radio mast.
As an illustrator I know the problems a
controversial paint scheme can cause. That is why I made sure in my mind that
this was accurate before I decided to show anyone."
James HOLLOWAY
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
AI-316 top wing artwork *PIC*
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
In REPLICA, January 1990, "Shinjuwan no
101 Ki" (Pearl Harbor & 101 Aircraft) by H. Yoshimura with M. Asano,
D. Aiken, et al, is artwork for the top wing of AI-316. With the REPRINT of
that article we printed several photos used for the project including one of
the top wings of AI-316. Below is the artwork [next is the photo]:
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: AI-316 top wing artwork
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
In Response To: AI-316 top wing artwork *PIC* (David_Aiken)
What is the color given for the outer wing? I
just viewed the Home Brew video and there are two sequences of Kates with
light-colored outer wing panels. The one from which your frame is taken was
shot from the bridge of Akagi. The other is from a lower angle and it's hard
to see any other details to verify if it's the same plane.
Umm...
Posted By: Phil, REALLY confused now... <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 6:37 p.m.
In Response To: Re: AI-316 top wing artwork
(Greg Springer)
Me too. What color is that? I can't read
Japanese at all, and I had always imagined that the peeling paint revealed
natural metal underneath, but in the posted artwork, it's a brownish shade.
Also, it seems to me that in the pic posted on 28 Oct @1:05 (right below), the
shade revealed by peeling on the fuselage is a lighter color than the outer
wing. Also, what time period would this be seen? I'm getting the impression
that it would be post-PH, but is that right? I guess the biggest question I
have is, what color is that?
Re: Umm...
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 9:06 a.m.
In Response To: Umm... (Phil, REALLY confused
now...)
The artifacts at Nimitz show the flat dark
green sprayed over a gloss 16350. When applying multiple coats of paint it is
necessary to lightly sand the undercoat in order for the topcoat to adhere
strongly. I would guess that, in the frantic effort to prepare for the PH
attack, there was no time to prepare the gray coat correctly so the green
began to flake off almost immediately, showing the gray underneath. The gray
on the artifacts is still glossy. In the film clip some metal shows through,
especially along the wing fillet, but it looks mostly like the undercoat is
exposed. One more thing I noticed is that the wing hinomarus appear to be
lighter than the surrounding paint but this may well be due to reflectance of
the very shiny red paint. Mr. Holloway has painted an excellent picture!
Re: Umm/These May Be THE Colors!!! *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 6:00 a.m.
In Response To: Umm... (Phil, REALLY confused
now...)
If the photo of Kate [AI-316] (according to
AIKEN) or [AI-318] (according to HOLLOWAY) were taken after Pearl Harbor, then
it IS possible to have the "grey-poupon" color described by David
AIKEN. This would be pure speculation based on one's interpretation of a
monochrome photo!
The only bonafide relics we have from a
Nakajima B5N2 Kate (the so called "Hospital Kate") shot down ar
Pearl Harbor carried the colors shown below.
The dark green compares favorably with FS-34052
to FS-34079 (the exact color is Munsell 5 GY 3/1) according to my analysis of
this piece.
Greg SPRINGER got a different reading of the
dark green on the Nimitz Museum "Hospital Kate" remains (FS-34084 to
FS-34086).
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: Umm/These May Be THE Colors!!!
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 8:13 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Umm/These May Be THE
Colors!!! *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
The 34084 to 34086 range is from the large
artifact. The smaller, more heavily coated artifacts seem a bit lighter in
tone, more towards 34079. I'll be going back on the 10th to verify.
Re: AI-316 top wing *PIC*
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 28 October 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
In Response To: AI-316 top wing artwork *PIC* (David_Aiken)
H. Yoshimura's analysis of the film strip (a
frame is below) of AI-316 on takeoff in the Indian Ocean action gave cause for
his Jan 1990 artwork in REPLICA (28 Oct 2:52PM posting) and comments about
poor adherance of the paint between 7 Dec 1941 and April 1942. The frame below
shows the tail code out of focus, sorry. If this looks familiar check James
Holloway's artwork of AI-318 (28 Oct 6:57AM posting).
Re: AI-316 real caption *PIC*
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 9:20 a.m.
In Response To: Re: AI-316 top wing *PIC* (David_Aiken)
The real caption for the AI-316 photo (28 Oct
1:05PM posting) is below. The first line says the film clip was made during
the "...Indian Ocean Campaign (ie: April 1942); [Akagi]...":
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: AI-316 enroute Pearl Harbor *PIC*
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 9:37 a.m.
In Response To: Re: AI-316 real caption *PIC* (David_Aiken)
Thought you'd like to view AI-316 enroute to
Oahu. This frame just barely shows both wings' dark green camouflage. Note the
fuel/oil "status" stencil on the cowl (style of box is different for
Zero & VAL); the red spot on the top of the fuselage just forward of the
canopy (oil fill cap); the angle stripes to aid torpedo runs; just a tiny bit
of the wire "sight" on top of the cowl; and a bit of the bomb
shackle.
[Editors note: The image is not replicated in
the FAQs]
Re: AI-316 enroute Pearl Harbor
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 10:13 a.m.
In Response To: Re: AI-316 enroute Pearl Harbor
*PIC* (David_Aiken)
Your photo appears to show that the nose number
is [15]?
Do you think it could be [AI-315]?
Re: AI-316: another frame from film
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 29 October 2000, at 10:34 a.m.
In Response To: Re: AI-316 enroute Pearl Harbor
(James F. Lansdale)
Another frame of this film clip is printed in:
THE WAY IT WAS: PEARL HARBOR; THE ORIGINAL
PHOTOGRAPHS
by Don Goldstein, et al [NY: Brassys; 1991]
page 53.
The plane is AI-316.
AI-316 OR AI-318?
Posted By: James Holloway <bobwimple@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 1:46 a.m.
I was just curious as to how your research
chose the code AI-316 over AI-318. In the footage the rudder is offset just
enough to where the last diget is in shadow. You can just make out enough or
it to where it could have been 6 or 8. I would have flipped a coin on this.
I also have a profile for AI-316 that shows it
to be solid green uppersurfaces with a red leaders bar under the tail code. It
has a red fuselage stripe with a white border, manufacturer's plate on the
cowling and configured for an 800kg bomb, none of which is on the photo of
Kate taking off, but matches the flying photo that you posted.
Anyway, I'm glad that there is another source
for the gray-green wings, people were trying to tell me I was fooled by sun
glint.
Re: AI-316 OR AI-318?
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 7:06 a.m.
In Response To: AI-316 OR AI-318? (James
Holloway)
Good Morning James,
Your painting is great!
Remember that the takeoff film was viewed by my
co-author H Yoshimura. His analysis was the code AI-316. I trust his research.
As to AI-316 having a command stripe without
white piping in the Indian Ocean action, I thought it did and Yoshimura
addressed that. Check his responce in the caption and text.
The problem is the formation on 7 Dec 1941 for
AI-316 and AI-317...and the location of the movie camera in the LEAD
plane...and another plane partially filmed had "18" on the lower
wing. The only Akagi movie camera in the high-level unit was in the KATE flown
by Chief Petty Officer Koji Otani, with senior officer Lt Izumi Furukawa as
navigator/observer (thus a two striped tail for Buntaicho).
This was a five plane formation. The leader of
the original three plane formation was supplimented by two planes from another
three plane unit (usually a Shotaicho and one of his wingmen).
Otani was in the lead. AI-316 on the starboard
wing to Otani and AI-317 as tail end of the starboard echelon. AI-318 was the
tail end of the port echelon. AI-317 had no command stripe (I had a nice
dinner with the pilot and three of his golfing buddies in Nov 1991). Given
this info, AI-318 is more likely to have had a Shotaicho command stripe at
Pearl Harbor.
Re: AI-316 OR AI-318?
Posted By: James Holloway <bobwimple@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 12:39 p.m.
In Response To: Re: AI-316 OR AI-318? (David_Aiken)
Dear Mr. Aiken, thank you for your comments on
the painting.I mean no disrespect to your co-author. I cant see how you can
make a choice on the last diget by this film alone. I've seen a darker version
of the film and still couldn't decide on it. What I stated was that the art on
316 DID have the white border around the fusalage stripe while 31? did not.
316 has a red command stripe under the tail code, 31? does not. If 316 is the
same plene I painted. and it had a command stripe would they have removed it
and with the paint peeling so badly could it have been done without disturbing
the paint underneath?I'm not saying I'm correct and you are wrong, I can't
help but feel these are two different aiecraft.
Re: AI-316 OR AI-318?
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
In Response To: Re: AI-316 OR AI-318? (James
Holloway)
The "you" in the 30 Oct 12:39PM
posting should be "H. Yoshimura" as I can not comment otherwise.
Gomen nasai,
Gray-winged Kates
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 10:33 p.m.
Since the various postings on this subject, I'm
very interested in building a model of one. Is the Akagi example the only one?
Or were there some from other carriers? Also, a question about Kaga Kates.
Approximately what color were the brown tails? Do we have any leads on this?
And another thing...
Posted By: Phil <Phil_Graf@baylor.edu>
Date: Monday, 30 October 2000, at 10:39 p.m.
In Response To: Gray-winged Kates (Phil)
Oops! Left something out. I know there is a
range of colors that match the upper green color for the Kates, is the
Aeromaster Nakajima IJN green a suitable shade? Also, what is FS 16350 close
to in terms of produced paints, (ex. Model Master)?
Re: And another thing...
Posted By: Mervin Brewer <mervin.brewer@slc.k12.ut.us>
Date: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 11:46 a.m.
In Response To: And another thing... (Phil)
Phil, I work in a hobby store and just found FS
16350. Floquil makes a color in it's Maritime colors called Light Gray. The
bottle says fs16350. I do have @12 bottles of this.
Hope this helps. Merv
Re: And another thing...
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
In Response To: Re: And another thing... (Mervin
Brewer)
Please take a second look at that number.
Re: And another thing...
Posted By: Mervin Brewer <mervin.brewer@slc.k12.ut.us>
Date: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 6:43 a.m.
In Response To: Re: And another thing... (Greg
Springer)
Greg, Thanks, After looking at several Thousand
stock numbers a day I get a little punchy. The side of the box is printed FS
1650. I thought all FS numbers were five digits? Anyway this "Light
Gray" is a color very similar to Floquil Concrete lightened with quite a
bit of white. Sorry for the erroneous info.
Hospital Kate Colors
Posted By: Greg Springer <gspring@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Under a beautiful, totally clear sky this
morning between 11 and noon I matched the following:
The green overpaint on the large upper-surface
piece of skin (possibly from the right outer wing) ranges from 34079 thru
34083, 34096 to 34064 and 34084 at the darkest. This is due to the uneven
thickness of the paint. In general the colors were the middle of the range and
few areas were as light as 34079 or as dark as 34084. Underneath is a gray-tan
similar to 16350 but lighter.
A crumpled piece of skin of uncertain
provenance at this writing was more solidly covered in the range from 34064 to
34084. The undercoat, where seen, is more yellow/tan than 16350 and may have
picked up some staining from the dark green top coat.
The artifact from the Vireo crewmember ranged
from 34079 to 34096. The undercoat was slightly darker and greener than 16350,
again possibly influenced by the top coat. The aotake coat on the reverse of
this piece is much more blue toned than on the other artifacts. Kind of a
light aquamarine color. Still, the aquisition papers say it is from the
Hospital Kate.
The crumpled section of wing undersurface
showed that the coat of 16350 was applied AFTER application of the hinomaru.
Under the microscope it overlapped onto the red by about 2 millimeters around
the perimeter. It was sprayed on and very neatly masked. One segment of the
16350 and hinomaru was protected by being in a fold of the skin and both
colors are very glossy in this area. The hinomaru color is between 11105 and
11136 as is the insignia color on the Iida artifact.
I shall soon send some slides of these
artifacts to Dave for posting on Jim Lansdale's Pearl Harbor Artifacts page.
Cheers!
Return
to Faq