Correct Late War RLM Model Paint

[stona]

I believe the blue RLM 83 has also been identified on aircraft operating from Norway. The evidence is mounting, it was certainly intended for maritime camouflage. It maybe that because in the case of late war colours, particularly 81 and 82, there was some confusion over exactly what they were supposed to be ("there is no acceptance inspection of the paint's shade") both the olive brown and olive green shades previously attributed to 81 and 83 are in fact both versions of 81. This is certainly what Ullmann suggested when he wrote this.

"Test order E2-45/31

(Development and verification of camouflage for the Mediterranean Sea)

• -Report August 1943:
  Alongside RLM 73 a "dark blue" colour will be use. Flight test in the near future.
• Report September 1943:
  Using the camouflage pattern "Land" and "Sea" with RLM 73 and the dark blue colour 300/III suggested for introduction.
• Report November 1943:
  Closed with report dated 10. November 1943. Colour RLM 83 "DARK BLUE" with RLM 72 for Sea- and RLM 70 for land aircraft suggested for introduction.
• Sammelmitteilung 2, dated 15. August 1944:
  …on the dark shades RLM 72, 73, 75, 81, 82, 83 …. (no colour was stated)

These original documentation of the introduction of the new colour leads to the conclusion that we have to expect a lot of "dark blue" Luftwaffe aircraft in the Mediterranean theater.
Much more important for all those fighter-fans: This "dark green", formerly known as RLM 83, is nothing more, nothing less than a dark green variation of RLM 81."

Merrick was well aware of the dark blue colour applied to the Ju 88s of KG 54 operating in the Mediterranean, he discussed them in volume 1 of his Luftwaffe colours. A well known example landed in Switzerland by mistake. The colour is described as being between RLM 24 and RLM 78, but it was a match for neither. Now Ullmann (and others, I think Anders Hjortsberg might be updating some profiles ) believe it to have been the RLM 83 colour.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Lucky13]

Great stuff fellas!

 

[mikewint]

Steve, I'm not even vaguely an authority but nonetheless I remain unconvinced. There is simply too much evidence predating Ullmann's recent discovery of a single document. If you did mean VOL #1 it covers the years 1935 - 1940.
Ries (1963); Smith et al (1979); Merrick & Hitchcock (1980); Warnecke & Bohm (1998); and Ullmann in 2008 all show RLM 83 as DUNKLEGRUN and a perfectly good RLM 24 as Dunkleblau
This information is based on official paint samples, photographs, crash reports, comparative analysis with surviving aircraft, wreckage fragments, etc. (Smith and Creek, 1994, p.247; Smith and Gallaspy, 1977, pp.134, 136-137). Eagle Editions published a color paint chip chart utilizing material acquired from the late Ken Bokelman. In the preparation of his chart, they used as a reference a color paint card with a dark green paint sourced from Warnecke and Böhn archives that was identified as 83.
Work by researchers in Eastern Europe added important information, and hard data, regarding late-war colours (Poruba and Janda, 1997; Poruba and Mol, 2000). These researchers based much of their conclusions on four paint cards found at Prague-Rusin at the end of the war. Only two of these were identified on the back of each card: 76 and Nr.82. These matched exactly with other samples of these two colors. The other two cards were not identified, but again matched the known and accepted shades of 81 and 83.
Therefore, from what is known to date, the identity of color 83 is recognized and accepted as a dark green color. This is confirmed from various secondary sources, but most particularly primary sources such as the color paint cards from Warnecke and Böhn, and those recovered from Prague-Rusin which in both cases simply identified the color as 83.

 

[stona]

I can only refer you to Ullmann's own words, bear in mind that English is not Michael's first language.

"Let me point out a few things for clarification
- RLM 83 was Darkblue
- The formerly described "Dark green" RLM 83 is a dark green RLM 81 variation
- Dark green RLM 83 never exist (or have anyone an original surface protection list of a Luftwaffe aircraft that decribed that?)
- The solution for all these variation of RLM 81 and 82 is that RLM couldn't provide colour chips to their quality assurance. Therefore the right colour of the paint was never quality controlled (Check Sammelmitteilung 1, my second edition Hikoki, page 343 "camouflage for Gliders", second row, second sentence, beginning with: Delivery of colour charts .....). This is a fact always completely overseen* in all the discussion over the years."

[* I think we can be sure that he meant 'overlooked' in this context.]

As regards references to his own and other people's earlier work, including his comments on colours in one of Jerry Crandall's books.

"First, when I wrote the text for Jerry's book I describe the knowledge base then. Today the text must be updated with my latest research results. Text in a book could only be a snap-shoot of the knowledge then."

The JaPo guys themselves came across a problem when examining some paints discovered in the Czech Republic in 2007. I can't find the entire article (it is online somewhere) but the relevant part I saved.

"Unfortunately only two labels applied on the cans were saved (photo 3 ) but damaged , it is clearly visible that at least one paint was in the range 8X as a 8 is visible . The second digit seems to be 1 that would mean that the paint is RLM81 but the color is definitively dark green. So another mystery…"

Ullmann may have solved the mystery. It is possible/probable that they actually discovered a 60 Kg can of RLM 81 designated as dark green. As I said, the evidence for different colours, notably a brown and a green version of RLM 81 has been mounting over the last few years, as is that for RLM 83 being a dark blue maritime colour.
It is fair to say that opinion is divided! Ullmann stirred up quite a hornets' nest when he first advanced his theory about five years ago, and the matter is not settled. We may never have a definitive answer, and, at the end of the day we are debating 70+ year old designations which don't really matter anymore. We often have other evidence for the camouflage of these aircraft, be it two greens or a brown and green and the numbers by which we call the model paints to represent them is a minor issue.

Cheers

Steve

 

[mikewint]

Steve, I grant the possibility but just as in science, one does not overturn multiple years of multiple experimental results and data on the basis of a single abnormality. So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck I'm going to call it a duck while maintaining the possibility that it may not indeed be a duck

 

[fshort]

Hi Mike & Steve:

Thanks for the researched, cited info!

I have been researching paint colors for my He 162A-2 project.

All the parts I have are different shades of RLM 66 (for example), as are all the color chips...

I certainly understand, having painted some, the differences in application, weathering/fading, mixing, etc. affecting the final colors I see . With the disbursed production, supply problems, speed of production needed, I'm not surprised!

When I went to see NASM's 162, I talked to the Silver Hill guys about paint - the most surprising thing I learned was that they replicate the color they found (on the aircraft) when they repaint. Also, the most common question posed to them was what color is 02.

I'm leaning towards having several different shades of 66. I have test mixed enamels & found that flat paints don't match
the paint on my parts, so I'm going to add some gloss paints in.

The NASM 162 cockpit was all painted at once, but under stringers, etc. there was no paint - just like the painter leaned in from the top to shoot it.

I'm going to paint the wooden instrument panel first, so my question right now is if it had the red primer under the color. What I've seen leads me to think it didn't...

Regards,
James

 

[ktank]

Note that Gunze Aqueous also do 81,82 and 83. Very similar to Tamiya acrylics (ie alcohol based) and can in fact be intermixed with them.

 

[mikewint]

James, Can't answer that directly but I'd have to say that "it depends". The later in the war the more corners that were cut and as I posted a number of times, in 44-45 the Germans had many many more problems to deal with than color matching which in some case became impossible due to war shortages of basic materials.
RLM 02 is named Grau or Grey but the color chips I've seen are very definitely a greenish gray and in my opinion more green than gray.
I use Tamiya's XF-22 called RLM GRAY

 

[stona]

I don't know either, but given the nature of production in the period in question it wouldn't surprise me if no primer was applied.

The point of the numerical RLM code is that it describes a sample to which the colour should be matched. Any verbal description was unofficial, and different manufacturers etc. used different verbal descriptions for the same colours. If you want an example of the confusion caused by a verbal description, just look at the signals flying back and forth when the British introduced Sky, and the amount of Sky Blue, the wrong colour, applied by various units.
A container of German lacquer would have no verbal description of the colour on the label (unlike a British lacquer, defined by a verbal description matched to a universal store's reference), just the RLM number.
Like this:

This is the label from one of the containers found in the Czech Republic, containing a dark green paint. 'JaPo' have interpreted the number at the end of the lacquer code (you can see the ...ack of 'Flieglack' before the numbers in the top line), the one that gives the colour, as an 81. There is no doubt that this paint was destined for the Diana works and the Bf 109 G-10s produced there at the end of the war. If that is an 81, then whatever RLM 83 might have been, RLM 81 definitely had a dark green version.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Robert Porter]

Just to throw this in, I have been using a lot of MRP's line. They are lacquer based not enamels. And they are gaining quite a following in WW2 modelers because their color selection tends to be pretty good!

 

[mikewint]

Robert the key word here is lacquer. The hazards inherent in their use and the safety measures required are not worth it (to me) not matter how fantastic or accurate they are.
Inhalation
Most lacquers and paints contain chemicals that pose a health hazard. Among these chemicals are urethane and cyanide compounds that can be particularly hazardous if inhaled in any significant quantity. These chemicals penetrate the lungs during inhalation and accumulate on the fibrous walls of these vital organs, causing irritation and swelling. Symptoms of chemical inhalation include coughing, sore throat, wheezing and difficulty breathing, dizziness, headaches, or vision problems may sometimes occur.
Skin Contact
Short-term exposure to paint and lacquer is not likely to cause problems for your skin. A common indicator of prolonged exposure to paint and lacquer is contact dermatitis, or redness and itching of the skin. In rare cases, the actual cause of discomfort is an allergy to paint and lacquer.
Eye Contact
During the spray application of lacquer and paint, liquid particles containing toxic chemicals may get in your eyes and irritate your mucus membranes. This causes eye watering, swelling and may even lead to blindness.
Ingestion
Chemicals from paint and lacquer finishes can penetrate the digestive system just like they do the lungs. During the spray application of these materials, liquid particles make contact with the mouth and may be swallowed. Prolonged or extensive exposure of these chemicals in the digestive tract may cause a burning sensation and stomach upset.

 

[Robert Porter]

Mike, I understand your concern. But the risks are negligible. And Tamiya Acrylics carry a similar warning in California. A properly vented spray booth and a respirator should be standard equipment regardless what type of paint you are spraying. But my entire generation grew up painting with Testors and others enamels at our kitchen tables and remarkably we are mostly still here. I don't make light of the risks, but they truly are minor. Especially if you take minimal precautions. And to be totally realistic millions of dollars in enamels and lacquer based paints are sold every year with very few reported issues. According to the latest mortality figures published by the US government you are far far more likely to slip in your bathtub.

 

[mikewint]

Robert, you're talking to a child of the 50-60s when plastic glue came in a tube and smelled great and every movie star smoked on screen. One can also keep a Bengal tiger in the house, WITH proper precautions, of course.
To me it's simply a matter of cost/benefit. I used to make balsa wood control-line aircraft. The rice paper wings/body required multicoats of clear lacquer and more coats of color lacquer. 5 min in the garage gave you a buzz for an hour. Enamels/oil paints would make the entire house a buzz zone for days when walls/ceiling were repainted, not to mention cleaning up afterwards. Probably why I'm weird today.
Today I simply ask, what benefits to lacquers offer that acrylics do not. Do I want to buy the lacquer paint and then gallons of lacquer thinner to clean up my brushes/air brush with afterward-which also has to evaporate? For me, the answer is nope

 

[Robert Porter]

You are from my generation, so you are speaking to the same. And as to cost benefit, I can't really say except that in my own experiences lacquers and enamels give a far better coverage and result than any acrylic available. And they are much more durable. As far as health risks go, the cost in your equation, the risks are every bit as great with acrylics or any other aerosolized paint just different in nature. Breath any of that stuff and you expose yourself to any number of issues. The same precautions work equally well. My grandmother worked for Kaman aircraft, she was directly exposed to paint fumes her entire career and smoked 2 packs a day of non filter cigarettes. She died at 104 with clear lungs and was still walking a mile a day. Just saying don't overblow the risks. Thousands of us use lacquers and enamels and have our whole lives. I take proper precautions but I am not going to deny myself excellent quality paints and colors over a minimal quantifiable and avoidable risk. Just wear a respirator and use a vented spray booth and no issues. My wife is in the same room and never even noticed a smell when I am painting with the booth on. She used to be really peaved before I got the booth at having to wear a respirator to watch TV.

 

[mikewint]

As it should be, a matter of personal choice. That's why there are Fords AND Chevys