The great camouflage & markings debate

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Christian,

I hope that the rest are learning as much from this discussion as I am.

I found your comments very illuminating. If my understanding is correct, in Ken's latest books he tried to approach the subject by dealing with original paint chip formulations. However, with your confirmation that, say, RLM 81 can't be represented by a single sample, which is what he has done, then where do we go from here?

Use of a colorimeter could certainly help in making comparisons, but you do have a point that the represented sample as seen on an unrestored aircraft may be misleading but it may also be all that we have to work with. In other words, a random paint sample from part X off of a Dornier from 1943 might be totally worthless, even if we could section it as you suggest. Thus, the visual cross check that I suggested may be the best compromise that can be made in terms of efficiency in obtaining an answer.

If you have a better suggestion that can be reasonably employed or feel that a particular representation has covered the subject with reliable paint chip samples, please share this information with us.

Regards,
Richard

[Franek Grabowski]

This is only another proof of how much damage is being done by so called restorations.

[Nick Beale]

If the object is an accurate restoration of an aircraft, does it really matter which colour is a variation of which or what the correct number was? Interesting [to us] yes, but vital...?

When you have apparently reliable colour photos of Me 163s in real RLM paint and samples from crashed or preserved aircraft, isn't it acceptable practice to match those as closely as possible and paint the restored aircraft accordingly?

If you had no photos or samples and just a list of numbers to go on, then finding out what those numbers meant "in the paint can" would be far more important, wouldn't it - or am I missing something?

[Mikael Olrog]

May be Red Bull can sponsor the restoration? They know how to paint historical aircraft to make them eyecatching!

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Nick,

I seemed to have been asleep when you made a previous comment that the AWM Me 163 B has been restored, presumably meaning that the current camouflage is not original. Is this correct? If so, how close is the new to the original that was on the aircraft?

As for using color photos, it has been pointed out to me that, depending on the film type, the hue may be off. I will admit that the 2 color photos in Ken Merrick's 1980 guide showing the AWM Me 163 B, W.Nr. 191907 in its original colors appear to be superb. Can anyone attest as to their fidelity to the original?

Regards,
Richard

[Adam]

With the AWM 163, according to the the curator at the AWM, the aircraft has spent much of its life in doors, in 'reasonable storage conditions'. Unfortunately it was damaged during mechanical restoration by the RAAF (he wasn't sure on the precise date and didn't mention how) but sufficient areas of paint/camouflage and marking areas survived to take samples from.

These samples were then wet/dry graded and used as matches for a repaint. This was done in the late '80s early '90s in conjunction with the AWM's art conservation and restoration department. At the moment there are no plans to further match original hues of paint primarily because original investigation of the paint showed the layers were exceedingly thin and that the matches so far made are 'very close' to the presumed original (based on the work done in the late 80s and early 90s).

As for the markings of the aircraft, the AWM does have some photographs of the aircraft on which to base schemes and stencil placing. Although some angles of the aircraft are missing and others are incomplete, wherever possible the photographs will provide the evidence of stencil placing and camofalge patterns

Hope this is of some interest

rgd

Adam

[Flitzer]

Great discussion, and I'm adding my two cents, which is what it's worth.

Years ago I worked for a large multi national corporation that had a specialty paint division for industrial paints. I spent two weeks with that division and these thoughts stand out in my mind. The paints they were making for machinery manufacturers each had a specific color. They would produce these paints in batches as they were ordered. Each batch had to pass a test, it had to match the 'control' paint chip. But they didn't have just one control chip, they had two. To pass, the paint had to be somewhere between those two chips, and they were noticably different chips, I was amazed. I can imagine the last year or two of the war, a paint batch coming into the Messerschmitt Regensberg plant, and them refusing to accept it, holding up production, because the color isn't up to standard. Can't have the Reich defended by any aircraft having even a slightly incorrect shade of paint, better to lose the air war than fight with incorrect paint.

The application of that paint made a difference. The base color if any made a difference in the hue of the top coats because most of the camoflage paints were not sprayed on as a solid color, and even the spraying differed by the painter applying it. In other words, they were not painted to 'museum standard'. There are photographic examples of the same aircraft, sprayed with exactly the same paints by two different painters at the same time, and it's easy to spot the difference. Even thinning of the paints had another effect on the finish. So, I think an aircraft being painted for a museum should look as much like the photo of a wartime varient down to the primer showing here and there, and a few scrapes and scratches, and lest we not forget what the sun and rain did to these finishes that were not exactly made to last like the clear coat paints our cars have! Lastly, most of these aircraft had a coat of wax over them to gain a few more kilometers per hour in speed, and that darkened the paint a shade.

[ChrisMAg2]

Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger

...

I found your comments very illuminating. If my understanding is correct, in Ken's latest books he tried to approach the subject by dealing with original paint chip formulations. However, with your confirmation that, say, RLM 81 can't be represented by a single sample, which is what he has done, then where do we go from here?

Dear Richard,
we have now reached a point, where any decision to be made is a very personal one. There is no one and only solution for this. I cannot really say this or that researcher did something intentionaly wrong. Because in this matter, there are more then only one possiblilities/ solutions. --I didn't intend to "accuse" anybody of applying a wrong method. Who am I to do that? I also can only offer you (a) possibility(-ies). Nobody has the one and only truth here. The choise is still yours and yours only (or that of those who actualy have to make this decision).--
Remember "Radio Eriwan"? They would answer: "it depends ..." And it could be continued here "...on so many things/ the circumstances".
Reg representing one and only sample, you will have to ask (yourself), if i only have one single sample to analyse, can/ may I generalise the conclusion? The answer will probabely be something like, yes in this case that is possible. The remaining question is only: upto what extinct. As you see we are now getting philosophical. And you do have the freedom to follow up or not.

Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger

Use of a colorimeter could certainly help in making comparisons, but you do have a point that the represented sample as seen on an unrestored aircraft may be misleading but it may also be all that we have to work with. In other words, a random paint sample from part X off of a Dornier from 1943 might be totally worthless, even if we could section it as you suggest. Thus, the visual cross check that I suggested may be the best compromise that can be made in terms of efficiency in obtaining an answer.

Agreed! That is a valid attempt.

Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger

If you have a better suggestion that can be reasonably employed or feel that a particular representation has covered the subject with reliable paint chip samples, please share this information with us.

Well, I would want to suggest to follow Nick Beale's thought with a slight modification.

If the object is an accurate restoration of an aircraft, does it really matter which colour is a variation of which or what the correct number was? Interesting [to us] yes, but vital...?

•Forget the term "accurate restoration" (there is no such!) and replace it with something more general. Like i.e. (Reconstructional) approach. This will give you the freedom to see it as and act according to what it can, will and only be: a compromise or proximity.
•Keep in mind that the colors issued to that plane (late war color, absolutely non- standardised) only need to give a "more or less" correct impression. If you want to use AWM 163 as a reference, do that, with the maximum effort, you can put into it to achieve close as possible colormatches. Nobody would hold a colorchart against you results and say.: "hey, this doesn't match". And even if, that is easy to encounter.
•On a museum display it (usually) doesn't say, the colors used are RLM what ever. Instead, if ever you would give a color info, you would say something like "(the newly applied colors/paints) represent the scheme "XY" of 1944 to the best of (y)our knowledge." That is already good enough and absolutely sufficient (if you don't make the mistake and choose a too obviously different shade).

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Nick, Adam, Flitzer, and Christian,

Thank you all for your latest inputs.

Nick, I agree that trying to do a match to the AWM aircraft is a good approach. We are pretty certain the wings on the Duxford plane come from 2 aircraft, Aero Detail 10 says the Me 163 is made up of parts to 3 aircraft, and I think someone here even suggested 4. I have contacted Duxford to see what notes could be found for the 1997 restoration attempt and maybe something will come of that, but I tend to think we'll never know well how this aircraft looked at war's end. So, attempting to match the AWM machine, possibly with whatever markings Duxford can provide, may be our best option.

Adam, thank you for your valuable input. Do you have a lead as to who to go to to access the curatorial file information?

Flitzer, now we know exactly why the Germans lost the war. I'm amazed that no one ever thought of this! Seriously, you do bring up some serious points. These are also likely the cause of many aficiondo's disputes as to which color is correct.

Christian, thank you for your philosophical views, which support those of Nick and where I seem to be headed in my own thinking, with everyone's help.

Regards,
Richard

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger

Dear Nick,

I seemed to have been asleep when you made a previous comment that the AWM Me 163 B has been restored, presumably meaning that the current camouflage is not original. Is this correct? If so, how close is the new to the original that was on the aircraft?

The caption in the book said the 163 had already been "restored" in an erroneous scheme (IIRC it was a combination of greys). This was all a long time ago now of course and from other comments here, it seems like it's been redone since.