Am pornit sa fac acest studiu pentru a obtine o serie de vopsele (culori) pe care sa le folosesc in vederea obtinerii unui aspect unitar si veridic colectiei mele de machete ale avioanelor japoneze din cel de-al doilea razboi mondial.
Cu cat am studiat mai mult acest domeniu, cu atat am dat peste mai multe pareri expuse (uneori fara echivoc), sau chiar aberatii publicate cu nonsalanta data de mediul online.
Rezultatul este ca am ajuns sa-mi pierd speranta ca voi ajunge vreodata macar la o forma provizorie a unui game veridice de vopsele. Ma vad pus intr-o situatie ridicola atunci cand vreun modelist cu mai putina experienta, care doreste sa abordeze un subiect japonez, imi cere parerea ca unuia care se ocupa de acest segment de circa 10 ani. As putea sa-i prezint pentru fiecare culoare vreo 6 variante (fiecare cu argumentele ei)pentru ca apoi sa-l sfatuiesc sa ia singur o decizie uzand de o logica de bun simt. Eu am facut asta la randul meu si m-am ales cu "huiduielile" sau macar tacerea respectuoasa a unui numar considerabil de modelisti/cercetatori care-mi demontau din 3 fraze toata "logica de bun-simt".
Pot sa va spun insa cu siguranta ca una este sa FACI o vopsea si alta sa analizezi in procente si coduri, compozitia din care ar putea fi formata o vopsea deja aplicata.
Nici chiar firmele consacrate de vopsele nu pot repeta cu exactitate, cu toata tehnologia moderna pe care o au astazi la dispozitie, o aceeasi nuanta a unui anumit cod de vopsea.
Mai jos aveti exemple
Cu atat mai dificil cred ca era acest lucru acum 75 de ani cand amestecul de pigmenti din diverse surse era facut manual. Mai mult decat atat, in ceea ce priveste vopselele firmelor de machetism, aproximarile ("echivalentele") intre anumite produse (vopsele) ale unor diferite marci (firme), odata verificate, se dovedesc de multe ori eronate si asta pentru ca, sa fim cinstiti, cine face aceste echivalente are de cele mai multe ori in vedere aspectele comerciale ale problemei. Adica vor o piata de desfacere si rentabilitate pentru niste produse in care au investit. Un exemplu de echivalenta de care m-am lovit recent dar care nu e nici pe departe singular este cel de mai jos Humbrol 64 versus Revell 75:
Cum spuneam, este greu de crezut ca un numar de producatori de vopseluri din perioada razboiului, care castigasera licitatii si incheiasera contracte cu segmentul militar, puteau obtine cu o precizie colorimetrica extraordinara, aceeasi nuanta de culoare specificata printr-un exemplu de urmat - respectiv un standard oficial.
In plus, camuflajul avioanelor era menit sa CAMUFLEZE avioanele in mod eficient fata de privirea inamicului (in aer si pe uscat) in situatii reale, si nu sa castige vreun concurs - "cine reproduce cel mai fidel culoarea X".
Consider deci, cel putin in ceea ce priveste intersul meu de a vopsi cat mai corect modelele mele, ca toate aceste controverse duse in extremis, pe subiectul unei culori, sunt niste aberatii in care s-a pierdut din vedere scopul initial si s-a ajuns deseori la exacerbarea unor orgolii personale.
In sprijinul acestei afirmatii pot aminti situatia anecdotica la care s-a ajuns in cadrul unor studii, de a se atribui nuante diferite ale aceleiasi culori (recomandate de standard), nu numai in functie de firmele producatoare dar chiar si de diverse tipuri de avioane ale aceleiasi firme.
Daca ar fi sa facem o schema in care culoarea recomandata de standard a fost aplicata, tinand seama in acelasi timp de parerile cercetatorilor, aceasta ar arata cam asa:
Vi se pare logic ?! Vi se pare ca in asemenea situatie ar mai conta ca exista un standard si niste reguli de aplicare ?
Pe drept cuvant, cei care alcatuiesc o gama de culori de folosit la modele sau care incearca sa faca macar o sistematizare si sa dea anumite exemple edificatoare, ajung sa puna invariabil alaturi de aceste lucrari un disclaimer care sa spuna:
- "Aceste concluzii sunt personale si nu reprezinta o regula de aur;
- Trebuie avut in vedere de catre fiecare machetist sa urmareasca si sa se raporteze la dovezile din epoca (foto si/sau scrise) si sa traga propriile concluzii in functie de acestea."
Adica, cam tot de capul tau esti si niciuna din afirmatiile citite sau vazute nu se pot constitui in argumente valabile.
Pai atunci care mai e rostul acestui traseu intortocheat !?!
Mai jos va dau un exemplu celebru. Este vorba de culoarea in care erau vopsite avioanele de vanatoare imbarcate Mitsubishi A6M Zero Sen, cunoscuta in literatura de specialitate si in cercurile initiate drept J3.
Pentru aceasta culoare am gasit urmatoarele echivalente:
FS 1 sau 26307 - un gri aproape neutru (Dr. Tenesse Katsuta - IPMS Canada citand ModelArt)
FS 14255 - Beige olive cald (Nohara - FAOTW)
FS 36463 - Un gri cu tenta bleu (Gullgray)- pt. aparate construite de Mitsubishi (Ichiro Hasegawa)
FS 35300 - Pentru aparate construite de Aichi (Ichiro Hasegawa)
FS 24424 - Gri-verzui spre mustar - pt aparate construite de Nakajima (Ichiro Hasegawa)
FS 25622 - Gri deschis bleu (asemanator RLM76)pentru aparate Kawanishi (Ichiro Hasegawa)
FS 36251 - Gri neutru asemanator RLM75 - (Serie de articole in SAMI citand Nohara).
FS *3440 - Foarte apropiat de RAF mid stone (Serie SAMI citand David Aiken)
FS *4257/*4255/*4201/*6350/*0277; Methuen 1E6 / 3E5 / 4E4; Pantone intre 5825U si 5835U sau 4495U sau 451U, mai brun decat 4505U; Methuen 4D2 la B-C1 (nu mai inteleg demult nimic si oricum mai continua pe cel putin 10 randuri - (Serie de articole in SAMI citand Lansdale)
FS 24424 - IJArmy (Fearis 1999)
RLM02 sau RLM02 cu putin Mid Stone
FS 34201 care e insa prea galben
RAL 7002 sau mai degraba 7003 - similar cu Revell 45 light olive dar acela e prea olive
FS 26357; FS 34201
Thorpe N9
RAL 7034 - pentru o vopsea de Zero proaspat iesit din fabrica
Xtracrylics 1016 RAF Hemp (canepa)
Humbrol 90 Matt Beige Green
Humbrol 168
Humbrol 168 + 886
Humbrol 168 + 225 (mid stone RAF)
Daca nu sunt 20 de variante, nu-i nici una. Hai ca avem de unde alege. Poti sa pui orice culoare iti vine si dup-aia sa motivezi ca te-ai luat dupa ce a spus X cercetator.
Spor la machetism !!!
MODELING COLOR CONSIDERATIONS
For quite some time, I started to study several references regarding the paints used to paint WWII aircraft (mainly from Japan and Germany). I tried to focus on articles, blogs, sites and studies that found their considerations on hard evidence.
My purpose was to create my own series of paints to be used on my models, hoping that this way I will achieve an uniform look for my collection.
The more I studied this domain, the more I came across several opinions expressed (sometimes unequivocally ), or aberrations published online nonchalantly.
The result is that I got to lose my hope that I will ever get even a temporary form of a reliable range of paints. I found myself put in a ridiculous situation when, one less experienced modeller who wants to deal with a Japanese subject, asked me for an opinion as one who deals with this segment for about 10 years. I could only recomand him about 6 variants of the same color (each with its arguments) and then advise him to take a decision using his own logic and common sense. I did that on my turn and I got the "boos" or even respectful silence from a considerable number of modelers/researchers that have dismantle my logic in three sentences. So much for the " common sense " .
But one thing I can tell you for sure. One thing is doing a paint and another one to analyze the percentage and codes, of the composition which may form an already applied paint.
Not even established paint companies cannot repeat exactly the same shade of a paint, even with all the new modern assets in this domain in present days.
You can see up a photo of a commercial set of RLM paints where in some cases 71 gets to be darker than 70.
There is also a photo of same codes of paints but from different batches. Not just the lids are different shades, but also the color in the pot differs from that on the lid. So for one code, you get 4 shades.
The more difficult I think it was 75 years ago when the mixture of pigments from various sources was done manually. Moreover, in terms of modelling companies paints, approximations ("matches") between certain products (paints) of some different brands, once verified, often prove to be erroneous and that's because, to be honest, who does these matches often bears in mind the commercial aspects of the problem. That will be a market and profitability for some products in which they have invested. An example of equivalence that I recently hit, but not far from singular is Humbrol 64 versus Revell 75, said to match.(You can see the image up in the text).
As I said, it is hard to believe that a number of manufacturers of paints during the war, which had won tenders or contracts in the military segment, could obtain extraordinary accurate colorimetric shades of the same color, specified by an example - given by an official standard.
In addition, the aircraft painting was designed to effectively camouflage (hide) planes from enemy eyes (from air or land) in real situations, and not to won a race - "who can get most closely to the X color".
So I think, at least in terms of my interest to accurately paint my models, that all of these controversies brought in extremis on the subject of color correctness, are aberrations and have lost sight of the original purpose, getting to exacerbation of personal pride on this subject.
In support of that I can ask you to remember an anecdotal situation reached in studies, where different shades of the same color (recommended by a standard), are assigned not only to different manufacturing companies but even to various types of aircraft manufactured by the same company.
If you were to make a scheme on how some colors from a recommended standard was applied, taking into account what we know until now, I guess it would look like this:
Does this seem logic to you ? You think that in a situation like this it will matter anymore that a standard and rules of application exists !?
Rightfully, who makes up a range of colors for models or even trying to make a systematization and give some illustrative examples, invariably should end up with a disclaimer that may read:
- "These conclusions are personal and should not be considered a golden rule";
- Care must be considered by each modeler when follow those rules. Please relate to specific documents from the historical period (photo and/or written) and draw your own conclusions based on them."
So much for the rules. At the bottom end you are on your own again and prone to be criticized (unconstructive, because they will appear when you have already finished your model).
So, why should we go through all this maze of knowledge !?
Bellow I will give you a famous example. It's about the (belived) color of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero Sen, known in the technical literature and in the initiated circles of connoisseurs as J3.
For this color I found, around my sources the following equivalents:
FS 1 sau 26307 - an almost neutral gray (Dr. Tenesse Katsuta - IPMS Canada citand ModelArt)
FS 14255 - a warm Beige olive (Nohara - FAOTW)
FS 36463 - a pale blue tinted gray (Gullgray)- pt. aparate construite de Mitsubishi (Ichiro Hasegawa)
FS 35300 - for some machines build by Aichi(Ichiro Hasegawa)
FS 24424 - moustard gray-green - for machines built by Nakajima (Ichiro Hasegawa)
FS 25622 - pale blue-gray (close to RLM76 a.n.) for machines built by Kawanishi (Ichiro Hasegawa)
FS 36251 - neutral gray resembling RLM75 - (Serie de articole in SAMI citand Nohara). I know that 75 has a violet hue. More neutral is 77 but it's less known.
FS *3440 - very close to RAF mid stone (Serie SAMI citand David Aiken)
FS *4257/*4255/*4201/*6350/*0277; Methuen 1E6 / 3E5 / 4E4; Pantone between 5825U and 5835U or 4495U or 451U, brown-er then 4505U; Methuen 4D2 at B-C1 (They lost me long ago and it continues like same for at least 10 rows - (Series of articles in SAMI quoting J.Lansdale)
FS 24424 - IJArmy (Fearis 1999)
RLM02 or RLM02 with a little Mid Stone
FS 34201 which is too yellow
RAL 7002 or better 7003 - close to Revell 45 light olive, but that is too olive.
FS 26357; FS 34201
Thorpe N9
RAL 7034 - for a fresh factory Zero.
Xtracrylics 1016 RAF Hemp
Humbrol 90 Matt Beige Green
Humbrol 168
Humbrol 168 + 886
Humbrol 168 + 225 (mid stone RAF)
If there aren't 20 variants there is none ! So you have where to pick from. Just start building.
I wish you success in guessing the cockpit color. After that you can pick any color you like from above and if asked about it, you can point to one researcher as your inspiration.
Happy modelling !
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu