Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Cancian
Anyone know why this may be?
|
This D.I, in the picture, is not a production (or pre-production) unit, it is a prototype constructed by Jco. My theory on the tonal difference is probably an experiment to see which camo scheme is more effective to reduce detection & recognition visual ranges. The starboard wing panel looks similar to the camo scheme as seen on the Junkers J1. Since the port wing's tonal value is darker, I would assume that Mr Abbott is correct in his theory (Mauve is dominate color)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Cancian
...so was a reasonably "pure" green but reasonably light... anyone have some paint or colour refs?
|
Well Mr Abbott said a pale mossy green. What do you think "pale" means? The pale green color is lower in color saturation. A pure color (or a pure spectral color) of green is 100% saturated, and is going to be pretty bright, so that's just the opposite of what he said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Cancian
Also, what was considered the "standard" camo for this aircraft? Whas the brown / chocolate coloured fuselaged version included in the kit decals considered as "production standard" camo or was it unusual?
|
The factory Junkers camo scheme is the pale green & pale mauve and I have some recent evidence that the green & mauve patterns (their shapes & locations) were standardized on each production unit as well. The chocolate brown D.I's fuselage was apparently painted in the field and some speculate that it was a squadron color (along with the blue & white banding). I know of two D.Is that were painted with the brown fuselage.
Mr Abbott's Methuen coding:
Pale Mossy Green - 2D8
Pale Mauve - 13C4
White Undersides - 20A2
Chocolate Brown - 6F4
Jan