Sovietwarplanes
May 22, 2019, 06:47:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This forum replaces the old sovietwarplanes.com whose domain has expired in January 2017. It has been updated with the posts of the year 2016.
The new location of the site 'Sovietwarplanes pages' is at http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: FS aproximation for AII Green and question for Massimo re AMT-4 FS references  (Read 24318 times)
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2011, 09:25:04 PM »

This raises some questions:

How do we explain the apparent discrepancy between AKAN's AMT-4 and the AMT-4 shown in the photograph of the LaGG fuselage posted many places including earlier in this thread, which shows a much purer yellowish green?

If AKAN's AMT-4 is the best extant approximation, why did Vahlamov and Orlov offer 34102 and/or 34151 as FS approximation(s) when there appears IMO to be at least one chip that's closer?

Finally, as a modeler trying to get reasonably close, am I aiming at something in the direction of a light olive drab, a yellow-green, or something in between?

Hi Pip,
your questions are almost who is right and who is wrong...  Lips Sealed

I would not call it a "discrepancy"; all three of them (Vahlamov, Orlov and Akanihin) had access to the same copy of the Albom.  Vahlamov and Orlov were more interested in history, Akanihin in colours/shades.  Akanihin is not an aviation specialist, more of a general paint expert.

If you are modeling 1941-43 Yak or Lagg, you are aiming at olive (green)!!!  Not drab, not brown - more yellow-green!
hope this helps.  Smiley
Cheers,
KL
 
Logged
learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1733



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2011, 10:08:28 PM »

According to Mikhail Orlov's book on VVS colours, the AMT dopes were semi-glossy when first applied.  I believe they rapidly became matte with weathering, however.

Regards,

Jason

P.S.  Konstantin, I'll get my translation of Orlov sent to you in few days, at the latest.  I decided to try and "clean" it up a little more.
Logged

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
Seawinder
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2011, 12:04:37 AM »

Hi Pip,
your questions are almost who is right and who is wrong...  Lips Sealed

Well, yes, I suppose so    Lips Sealed

I would not call it a "discrepancy"; all three of them (Vahlamov, Orlov and Akanihin) had access to the same copy of the Albom.  Vahlamov and Orlov were more interested in history, Akanihin in colours/shades.  Akanihin is not an aviation specialist, more of a general paint expert.

I only meant discrepancy in the sense that I'm looking at the photo of the LaGG fuselage on my monitor and comparing it to the painted sample of AKAN AMT-4 in my hand. They look really different: as I said, the AKAN is more olive, the photo more yellow-green, leaning toward green.

If you are modeling 1941-43 Yak or Lagg, you are aiming at olive (green)!!!  Not drab, not brown - more yellow-green!
hope this helps.  Smiley
Cheers,
KL
 

I shouldn't have used the word "drab," but IMO what makes the color tend toward olive is exactly that amount of added brown-ness caused by the presence of some red in the mix. Simply adding more yellow to green doesn't make it olive IMO, just more yellowish. I don't suppose we know what pigments the Soviets mixed to achieve AMT-4?

As always, thanks for your thoughts and help.

Pip
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2011, 03:05:25 AM »

For what I know, AMT were a bit semigloss when new...

Correct, stress is on "a bit"

According to Mikhail Orlov's book on VVS colours, the AMT dopes were semi-glossy when first applied.  I believe they rapidly became matte with weathering, however.

This is taken away from the context!  Orlov did not mean semi-glossy in the sense modern, western paint producers are using word "semi-gloss":

From Wikipedia
Paint and other finishes come in a variety of finish gloss levels, which correspond to different levels of specular reflection.

One manufacturer measures gloss as percentages (at an unspecified angle) and gives:

Flat (1-9% gloss)
Low Sheen (10-25% gloss)
Eggshell (26-40% gloss)
Semi Gloss (41-69% gloss)
Gloss (70-89% gloss)


Semi-gloss defined this way is OK for glossy AII paints!!  Way too reflective for AMT paints.  think of new AMT paints as "low sheen" or "egg shell"

hope this is clear now,
KL





« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 03:11:25 AM by KL » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5693


« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2011, 06:55:52 AM »

Hi Jason,
Quote
I'll get my translation of Orlov sent to you in few days, at the latest.  I decided to try and "clean" it up a little more.
Could you send it to me too, please?

Hi Konstantin, hi Pip,
Quote
If you are modeling 1941-43 Yak or Lagg, you are aiming at olive (green)!!!  Not drab, not brown - more yellow-green!
Quote
I shouldn't have used the word "drab," but IMO what makes the color tend toward olive is exactly that amount of added brown-ness caused by the presence of some red in the mix. Simply adding more yellow to green doesn't make it olive IMO, just more yellowish. I don't suppose we know what pigments the Soviets mixed to achieve AMT-4?
I fear that verbal descriptions are inadequate. If the FS catalogue isn't exact enough, how can a verbal description make better of it?


Quote
Flat (1-9% gloss)
Low Sheen (10-25% gloss)
Eggshell (26-40% gloss)
Semi Gloss (41-69% gloss)
Gloss (70-89% gloss)

I don't understand how to interpretate this table. I suggest to have a look to the photos to have an idea of what is the most glossy finish allowed to new paint, then make it more flat in base to the wanted wearing.

Regards
Massimo
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2011, 07:55:07 AM »

Quote
I suggest to have a look to the photos to have an idea of what is the most glossy finish allowed to new paint, then make it more flat in base to the wanted wearing.

I had an impression that people here realize that "photographic evidence" is not necessarily the ultimate truth.   Sad

Amount of glare on photos depends on lighting conditions in the first place.  it depends on the time of day, how cloudy it is etc.  Planes photographed in winter will look different then planes photographed in summer.

Planes could be wet... or frozen...

Some VVS fighters were varnished with clear coat to improve their aerodynamics (all this because AMT paints were matte/flat and increased friction with air)

Some planes on your page could have been painted with old, glossy AII paints.

Why ignoring everything that has been written about AMT colors and rely on b/w photos only?  Huh
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5693


« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2011, 12:12:58 PM »

Hi Konstantin,
for what I know, both the most reliable textual source (Orlov) and the images agree on this point. This is enough for me. Yes, it's possible that a wet surface alters the perception, but the wet ground should be recognizable in the image.
Regards
Massimo
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 02:16:39 PM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2011, 06:44:03 PM »

for what I know, both the most reliable textual source (Orlov) and the images agree on this point. This is enough for me.

Hi Massimo,

one statement taken out of the context + "photographic evidence" = semi-gloss AMT colors

are you kidding, or I am wasting my time on this forum??

Regards,
KL
Logged
Seawinder
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2011, 07:06:32 PM »


one statement taken out of the context + "photographic evidence" = semi-gloss AMT colors[/b]

are you kidding, or I am wasting my time on this forum??

Regards,
KL

Hi Konstantin.
Please don't think that way -- I know we all value the knowledge and insights you share.

A couple of posts earlier, you wrote:

'This is taken away from the context!  Orlov did not mean semi-glossy in the sense modern, western paint producers are using word "semi-gloss":'

Can you then clarify what Orlov did mean when he used the term, and/or explain the context in which he used it?

Pip
Logged
mholly
Full Member
***
Posts: 117


« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2011, 07:58:43 PM »


one statement taken out of the context + "photographic evidence" = semi-gloss AMT colors[/b]

are you kidding, or I am wasting my time on this forum??

Regards,
KL

Hi Konstantin.
Please don't think that way -- I know we all value the knowledge and insights you share.

A couple of posts earlier, you wrote:

'This is taken away from the context!  Orlov did not mean semi-glossy in the sense modern, western paint producers are using word "semi-gloss":'

Can you then clarify what Orlov did mean when he used the term, and/or explain the context in which he used it?

Pip
AMT paints were intended and formulated to be flat, as per VVS HDQ requirements. However they dried with certain sheen, call it semi-flat for a change. It was most probably due to their nitro-cellulose pedigree. A- series enamels did dry flat. We all know that after some time in service the aircraft surface "reflectivity" started to vary due to maintenance, chalking etc. We should probably let this matter go, much more to discuss in terms of colors and patterns.
Cheers,
Mario
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2011, 09:38:02 PM »

A couple of questions may help to understand difference between AII Green and AMT-4:
Why did VVS insist on paint change in 1940-41?  What was wrong with AII Green and what made AMT-4 better?

Two properties compromised AII Green as an effective camouflage color:
1.   It was decodable (it would stand out against grass and foliage when viewed through certain filters or when photographed with certain types of film)
2.   It was glossy.  Glare/reflection was seen as a de-masking property and a serious problem.  Other major Air forces switched to flat paints even before WWII.

New, non-decodable, flat, camouflage paints were developed by VIAM, i.e. by a team lead by V. Chebotarevski. To make them non-dekodable different pigments than those in AII paints were used.  Flat apearance was achieved by addition of talc powder.
New flat nitrocellulose lacquers were called AMT for Aviatsionie, Matovie, Tkan (Aviation, Flat, (for) Fabric).  Note that flat appearance was considered so important it was included in paint name!
In 1942, VIAM and Chebotarevski won a state prize for their work on new aviation paints.  They probably would not get the prize if new paints were 69% glossy.  Grin

Orlov writes that AMT paints did not achieve 100 % flatness (there was still some reflectivity) when new.  He did use term semi-gloss to describe new AMT paint, probably not knowing how reflective/shinny are modeling semi-gloss coats.

Conclusion:  If you use modern semi-gloss coating you will get sheen typical for earlier AII paints (those were not 100% glossy either).  Your choice?

What will have a priority - historical data or ?photographic evidence? is also a personal choice.

Cheers,
KL      
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 06:15:52 PM by KL » Logged
learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1733



WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2011, 09:46:23 PM »

That's an excellent recap of the differences between the AII and AMT paints, Konstantin - thank you!

Regards,

Jason
Logged

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
Seawinder
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2011, 11:33:14 PM »

That's an excellent recap of the differences between the AII and AMT paints, Konstantin - thank you!

Regards,

Jason

Agreed, Jason. And I wanted to let you and the other fume-sniffers know: I may have found yet another good Model Master approximation for AMT-4: No. 1714 Forest Green 34127. The FS chip is very similar to, but darker than, 34151. In the bottle, the Testors 1714 looks like a dead ringer for the FS 34151 chip. I'll post again at some point after I've had a chance to spray some with black to see how it looks (and this time I won't apply any clear semi-gloss).   Smiley

Pip
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5693


« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2011, 06:43:52 AM »


Hi Konstantin,

Quote
are you kidding, or I am wasting my time on this forum??

it's hardly acceptable to receive such an answer after having employed thousands of hours to research and publish informations that people can enjoy for free. I think seriously you should reconsider your way to act.

Massimo
Logged
mholly
Full Member
***
Posts: 117


« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2011, 07:41:30 AM »


Hi Konstantin,

Quote
are you kidding, or I am wasting my time on this forum??

it's hardly acceptable to receive such an answer after having employed thousands of hours to research and publish informations that people can enjoy for free. I think seriously you should reconsider your way to act.

Massimo
Hi Massimo,
Let's not take these things too personally. You know well that quite many (maybe majority) of the "forumites" are not the native English speakers which includes you, Konstantin and myself for example. Sometimes the message, perfectly clear in the mother tongue, doesn't come out that well in English. Your hard work and amazing enthusiasm is highly appreciated, I'm surely not speaking just for myself. But you need to also accept that there are people out there who spent years (more than a decade) in archives, talking to veterans, examining fragments. Yes, I'm talking about Vakhlamov, Orlov a to a certain point Akanikhin. And THAT is a true research with results that can be, at this point in time and without hesitation, judged as seminal at least. Continued "challenging" of VVS standards and "discovering" new ones based on b&w pictures is NOT a research, with all due respect. There is much more else to do here-some information needs update for example, I wish we were talking MUCH more about modeling and SHOWING our work, that we seek other hobby paint equivalents to VVS standards as Pip Moss is trying (high praise to him for that!), that we "recruit" more active members, especially Russians. I wish Finnish modellers and enthusiast would join us. Just some food for thought.
Ciao,
Mario
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!