Revell mix to Humbrol

Well, the actual Hunter scheme was Dark Green 641 and Dark Sea Grey 638 with Aluminium undersides gradually changing to Light Aircraft Grey 627 after 1966 (BS381C colour specifications). So A is Dark Green and B is Dark Sea Grey. The corresponding Humbrol colours are 164 and 163, or in Xtracolour X4 and X1. The finish should be gloss, not matt.

The finish should be gloss immediately after the painters have finished with them. Once the linies got hold of the aircraft, they got subjected to some pretty brutal treatment and the gloss finish faded quite rapidly. It was never truly matt, but even well maintained *squadron* aircraft faded to a dull satin sheen. Note that I stress squadron aircraft. Various display aircraft were polished regularly. Even so the effects of scale and apparent distance would reduce the gloss effect.

I recommend completing the aircraft in a matt finish and then giving it a

*very* light satin overspray - just enough to add a noticeable sheen to the finish, but don't overdo it.

You are right, of course. In my defence I can only say that I didn't want to open up the whole concept of scale colour, and its subset "scale lustre", in my first response to an enquiry about Revell's paint recipes.

As someone with some experience of the real thing, can you say if there was any noticable difference between the gloss-finished airframes and the later matt-finished ones (post 1970, if my references are to be believed) *once they got into squadron service*?

I know... sorry! :-) Can? Open! Worms? All over the place!

Well the situation is incredibly complex because the matt finish didn't last long either. Once the linies had clambered all over the jet, spilled hydraulic fluid and engine oil over it, washed it a couple of times and let the jockeys chuck it around the sky a bit then the matt finish had a bit of a sheen to it...!

However, I remember that the Hunter T7s used by 237OCU in the early 80s were painted gloss Light Aircraft Grey. They would sit on the pan next to matt Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey Buccaneers. From a distance it was noticeable that the matted glossy aircraft were slightly more glossy than the glossed matt aircraft - if you see what I mean. ;-) So the answer is "yes" - there was a noticeable difference.

I think that the glossy-satiny lustre on matt aircraft would be negligible in 1/72. In 1/48 it may be worth trying to replicate a patchwork effect, having the top surfaces of wings and fuselage carrying a *very* slight sheen to show where the groundcrew had been. Replacement panels usually had a better quality of paint finish, so this is worth replicating as well, especially when - as usually happened - the camouflage demarcation didn't match. The thing that *will* show a well worn airframe is exposed metal on leading edges and such. This could be done by drybrushing zinc chromate over the edges and then drybrushing a *very* pale grey over the top of the chromate.

In every case the keyword should be "subtlety". Too little (either weathering or gloss) is preferable to too much.

Thanks - I have these tins already!

Revell now have NEW enamels out. only tried 1 or 2, i hear they are good.

Agreed. I usually work with Xtracolour (gloss) then decal, then finish with satin varnish, mixed with some gloss for a gloss subject or matt if the subject is very matt.

It's interesting that you recommend pale grey to represent the metal under worn paint - the natural reaction is to use aluminium or even silver there. Of course, the metal should be dull and worn, so pale grey makes sense.

Having no hands-on experience, I would want reference photo's nearby before replicating worn paint or replacement panels. There are lots of Hunter photos and books around, though, and I do have one or two :-)

There is one problem that even photo's don't always answer - the underside colour problem. References say that it changed from Aluminium to Light Aircraft Grey in 1966, but I can't tell the difference, even in colour photo's for the most part. New aircraft deliveries had finished by then, even the FGA9 conversions, so I expect that the changeover was gradual. How long did the silver undersides persist in your recollection?

I can't find anything on the Revell Germany site about new enamels. The only ones I have seen are the tinlets with blue labels that have been available for a few years now. Where did you hear about this?

The Revell paints that I have used are synthetic enamels, which means that you *must* thin them with Revell Color Mix. If you try using white spirit the mixture takes weeks to dry. Ask me how I know...

Sorry... can't help you there. I joined up in 1981 and by that time even the Light Aircraft Grey undersurfaces were gone! :-)

However... I have noticed something that may have a bearing on the matter. The Sabrinas (link collectors) on the side of the fuselage were made in two parts. In some photographs there is a quite noceable change in colour between the two components. I am of the opinion that this was because the Sabrinas were simply varnished rather than painted silver. The forward part was made of a lighter gauge metal and so appears lighter than the rear fairing. If you can see a colour difference on the Sabrinas, this may indicate that the undersurface was painted high-speed silver.

I must stress that this is my opinion after observing photographs and should not be taken as gospel. However, have a look at a few photographs and see what you think.

Ok i think i made a slight error, maybe the acrylics are all new, but i know they alterd the mixture on the enamels. i hated them years ago but what i have used so far has been good. the rep told me they put a lot of effort into knocking off Humbrol paints

However Humbrol colours are usable as is whereas I cannot remember making a Revell kit which doesn't involve mixing their paints

i belive they increased there range now.

Still not near Humbrol though!

I have a mix of the two

Unless Humbrol keep dropping colours. That gets frustrating.

Bill Banaszak, MFE