color documentation sources?

[semeraro]

Hello,

I though I would ask the masters about color documentation. I build WWI for the most part but my questions are applicable to all. First of all, I would like to find a source for WWI color chips. In particular I would love to find chips for the Italian red and green as well as that lovely Nieuport aluminum color and the 17s are painted in. I have posted on theaerodrome and gotten no pointers on those colors.

Now for a more esoteric question. Lets say I have a color reference to something in the Methuen (sp?) book of color. If I take the sample from that book to say Lowe's and have them mix me up a matching sample bit of paint, is it acceptable to paint my own color chip? I guess what I am really asking is that if I have a reference from say a windsock datafile that says the green on the bottom of an Italian bomber was such and such a color in Methuen how do I get a color chip out of that? I am certainly not going to cut up the book even if I could get my hands on one. More "modern" airplanes that have fs references dont have this problem. FS chips are readily available. In some cases the fs numbers are cross referenced in a datafile but not always.

How do you guys deal with this sort of thing?

regards,
Dave Semeraro

[rcphotog]

Dave,
  A couple things to consider.
First: the Scale Masters program is more about comparing one thing to another as appossed to truth or historical accuracy. In other words, the static judges are tasked to only compare your model to the documentation which you supply whether it's historicaly accurate or not.

Second: as noted in the competition guide, the contestant may use published colored line drawings and / or artist renderings such as plastic model box top illustrations. Fortunately we are not expected to prove the accuracy of such 'published' artwork. If you choose to use these renderings, then you must build your model to match.

Third: color chips, these will only be of value IF you are replicating a "factory-fresh" paint job. Let me explain. If your prototype aircraft is a war-torn combat veteran, then the paint will have some kind of patina from age in service. Example: a F4F Wildcat in the South Pacific into its sixth month or more of combat will not look anything like the FS color chip. The paint will be faded considerably and also have been "bathed" in engine oil from cowling to tail cone. Meaning it will show its age. The color temperature and hue will be very different from those color chips. Even the white in the insignia will be warmer from age or bleached out by the sun ( in the above example ) and still be somewhat dirty white.

My best suggestion: find your documentation first ( of the exact plane you wish to build ) then build the model to match those particular drawings and photos and artist renderings. Remember too that the judges can only go by what documentation you provide and not what is actually true.
Ken.
disclaimer: not yet a certified judge, but trying to memorize an ever changing quide book.

[rcphotog]

Here's what is ( widely contested ) often refered to as the "real deal". An actual WWI color photo.

I beleive though that it is possible that it's actually a colorized B&W picture. Very popular practice before 1935. In fact a good colorist could actually make a good living back then.

In either case, it's not important what we beleive to be true, it's only important that our model matches the photo. If you're using it for proof of color. You can see for yourself the diference between the two photos. Which one is correct? .....well it does not matter for our purpose as long as you only include one of them in your docs & once again, the model matches.
I've included another pic of also a Nieuport 17 but maybe taken with a slight wide-angle lens.
Ken.
ps; please also note that the use of Orthochromatic B&W film ( commonly used ) renders red darker than blue. Another canundrum when interpreting B&W photos for the colors used. You must first determin what film type was used. Also, filters would alter the gray tones such that for example, a red filter would almost eliminate completely any red paint in the photo. Red filters were commonly used to darken a blue sky and for other reasons. I could go into a very long diatribe on B&W photos prior to 1940 and how they can be very deceving.

NOTICE: If you can't see the attached photos, then you're not logged in. Remember only logged-in users of this site can see attachments.

[j_whitney]

Dave, can't help with the Italian colors, but for British and French you can go to Replicraft and get color documentation.  Jim is a modeler and well aware of what is needed.
Other than that, I agree with Ken.  Actually - as I am sure you are aware - there really is no definitive PC10, because it would start weathering immediately it was painted.  I suspect most WWI colors are the same way.
As far as Nieuport aluminum - it may very well have been finely ground aluminum powder in clear dope.  I haven't researched that so not sure, but it became common practice to use that to prevent or minimize UV deterioration.

[jlovitt]

Dave- you asked a question about painting your own chips.  Many people have used model masters matched model paints to produce their own chips, and I suspect some have also used chips that they sprayed from a paint shop color match.  However, this by itself would not be enough.  The builder could have the chips that have been modeler produced reviewed and signed by the scale contest board member just as you would do for a three view that required editing to match photos etc. 

If I was a color and markings judge, I would question the source of the chip if it was not clearly something that came from a published source.

Jeff Lovitt

[semeraro]

Thanks all for the input. I have not reviewed the scale masters rules but a quick look at the AMA rules seems to say that color chips are not explicitly required for documentation. I too had wondered about how judges take weathering into account in color and markings. I imagined that some conversation with the static judge explaining that the color would differ from the chip depending on the degree of weathering would be required. I would welcome comments from the judges in the audience on how they score color and markings and what is deemed adequate documentation. I imagine it will depend on the subject and how much material is available.

I was thinking of giving the aluminum in clear dope a try actually. You can buy aluminum paste from Wicks aircraft supply that is made explicitly for mixing into dope. I just wonder about the weight though. It is worth putting a test piece together I guess.

Dave

[j_whitney]

I was thinking of giving the aluminum in clear dope a try actually. You can buy aluminum paste from Wicks aircraft supply that is made explicitly for mixing into dope. I just wonder about the weight though. It is worth putting a test piece together I guess.

Dave

Depending on the amount to be covered the weight gain would be negligible.  A test would be good (and posting the results) - would also be concerned about RF signal blocking - if you could do a tube with the covering and paint you could test that too.

[Flite-Metal]

Color documentation is best applied with a color index based on chronology, especially military colors.

IPMS maintains as accurate a chronological index as anyone. You have to use an online color mix program
to match a color...you and only your eyes determine is a match. Otherwise use the explicit color identity for
replicating on a model.

Following the recommendations found in the IPMS web site, you will be armed to replicate a photo of the
subject airframe exactly.

Text based documentation can easily be cross indexed to color samples when you find acceptable visual
examples of the cross index. One thing which I have found works very well. The domed button used by
Testors provides a full spectrum of a given color when viewed in bright and overcast conditions.




Night Black R.D.M.2 ( FS37038 ) - Humbrol 33, Gunze H2, Testors/ModelMaster 1749, Vallejo Model Color 70950, Tamiya XF1.