Obsession with FS 36170: Who Got It Right?

[RichardL]

17 hours ago, Mstor said:

Or mixing MRP 36170 with one of their metallic line colors.

 

Since MRP 36170 is an excellent match to the base color, mixing it with MRP-082 Titanium and MRP-151 Bronze might give us good results.  I will need to order both.

[Mstor]

1 hour ago, RichardL said:

 

Since MRP 36170 is an excellent match to the base color, mixing it with MRP-082 Titanium and MRP-151 Bronze might give us good results.  I will need to order both.

 

Wow, you're going all out on this. I know I am grateful that you're doing this research. I am definitely interested in finding a decent color match to use when I do my F-35.

[Bobo1953]

hi.

sorry if i go a bit out of subject.

i went to the "individual color chip" link  richardL attached to his second post, but i'm rather perplexed: do i take it right that the cost for each 3x5 chip is u.s.$ 35?!!!

can someone confirm this to me or, preferably, disconfirm?

thanks.

best ciaos and happy modeling!

bobo.

[RichardL]

4 minutes ago, Bobo1953 said:

do i take it right that the cost for each 3x5 chip is u.s.$ 35?!!!

 

Yes, $35 USD is the correct price for each chip.  This is less expensive than other sources.  For example, you can also order the 3x5 chips from here for $49.95 USD each:  Federal Standard 595 Color Chips

 

Keep in mind that these official 595c color chips are used to verify colors on the real aircraft, so they can be a little expensive.

[Rex]

Yes, they cost that much.

 

And to top it off, if you use them for Government work, you have to destroy the 595C chips and replace with with 595A chips, because 595C is obsolete.

 

Edit, as people that use them for historical purposes, since some of them change when each edition comes out, we should be using 595, 595A, 595B, 595C,,,,,,then 595, 595A to match the era our models fall into. (using 595C for 1968 aircraft causes color accuracy issues)

Edited March 13, 2018 by Rex

[Bobo1953]

thanks richardL, although this is bad news: if i were to buy all the chips i do and will need, i'd have to be a millionaire!

ok. pity that. it was nice to think that i had found eventually a way to the F.S. chips...which are not cheap...(pardon the pun).

again, thank you, and...happy modeling!

ciao. bobo.

[Rex]

They are much cheaper if you buy the whole set at once.

 

But, that is still a large chunk of money.

[Bobo1953]

yep, rex, for my modeling budget, really out of reach...

ciao. bobo.

[RichardL]

5 hours ago, Rex said:

And to top it off, if you use them for Government work, you have to destroy the 595C chips and replace with with 595A chips, because 595C is obsolete.

 

The current AMS-STD-595A color chips are actually less expensive at $30 a pop.  I guess I will be ordering color chips from SAE International from now on.

 

[SebastianP]

9 hours ago, Rex said:

Yes, they cost that much.

 

And to top it off, if you use them for Government work, you have to destroy the 595C chips and replace with with 595A chips, because 595C is obsolete.

 

Edit, as people that use them for historical purposes, since some of them change when each edition comes out, we should be using 595, 595A, 595B, 595C,,,,,,then 595, 595A to match the era our models fall into. (using 595C for 1968 aircraft causes color accuracy issues)

 

What?

 

(checks wikipedia)

 

Ah, here we go.

 

The original was FED-STD-595 from 1956 which contained 358 colors. 

It was superseded by FED-STD-595A from 1961 with 437 colors. 

In 1994, FED-STD-595B Change 1 was introduced, with 611 colors.

And in January 2008, FED-STD-595C replaced the previous, with 650 colors.

 

Up until this point, no colors had been removed or changed, colors had only been added, so older color chips were still accurate, even if they weren't certified. 

 

In July 2008, FED-STD-595C Change 1 was approved, which *changed the numbers* of eight of the new colors from 595C, which according to Wikipedia caused great confusion because which paint to use was contractually specified by number, and suddenly there were contracts to paint items in colors which no longer legally existed.

 

(Think of what would happen if the government one day decided that FS 36375 was now FS 36380. FS 36375 no longer legally exists, so what is Boeing supposed to do with all the airframes they're contracted for that are to be painted in "invalid color"? Then try to figure out how many square feet of US government property is painted in FS 36375.)

 

Anyway, since the colors involved in the snafu were only six months old, there weren't that many problems, but it was still kind of dumb.

 

The latest standard, from January 2017, is AMS-STD-595, which is published by an independent organization called SAE International, and from their website it contains 654 colors. Why it's been developed by an independent organization and not a government agency as the previous versions, I have no idea. Presumably someone in Washington figured it was a good idea to offload the work on a private contractor rather than pay federal salaries and benefits for it. 

 

As for why there are color inaccuracies - remember that paints fade over time. A FED-STD-595A chip from 1968 will not look the same as an AMS-STD-595 chip of the same number, because the old chip is *fifty years old*, There's a reason why the big contractors replace their color chips every two years even if they're still in good shape, and it's because paint ages. The definitions of the colors haven't changed (barring the snafu with 595C and 595C Change 1), so in reality, an aircraft painted in FS 16440 in 1968 would have looked exactly like one painted in FS 16440 in 2018. We just think the color has changed because the reference chips have fifty years of exposure to at least air, and probably other pigment destroyers. 

[Darren Roberts]

Playing devil's advocate here, but once the aircraft gets out into the elements, gets dirty, and gets corrosion control, doesn't that render the chip colors moot? The only time using the chip for modeling purposes would work is if you're building a brand new, just off the line aircraft. 

[RichardL]

1 hour ago, SebastianP said:

We just think the color has changed because the reference chips have fifty years of exposure to at least air, and probably other pigment destroyers. 

 

These chips are supposed to be kept in their envelopes and stored in a dark, dry place when not in used, so they might not change that much over the years.

[RichardL]

1 hour ago, Darren Roberts said:

Playing devil's advocate here, but once the aircraft gets out into the elements, gets dirty, and gets corrosion control, doesn't that render the chip colors moot? The only time using the chip for modeling purposes would work is if you're building a brand new, just off the line aircraft. 

 

Like I already mentioned in another post, it's always best to start out with a good matching color and let the weathering process take its course, just like on the real thing.  Plus Air Force jets weather less than Navy jets, so the paint on most areas of Air Force jets will retain the original color(s).

[Darren Roberts]

1 hour ago, RichardL said:

 

Like I already mentioned in another post, it's always best to start out with a good matching color and let the weathering process take its course, just like on the real thing.  Plus Air Force jets weather less than Navy jets, so the paint on most areas of Air Force jets will retain the original color(s).

I can see that.

[Rex]

sorry, Sebastion, but Wiki is wrong.

 

Whoever wrote the latest version of that post on Wiki doesn't know that if 3 colors have/had different Munsell numbers at the time of the FS standard's publication,,,,,,they were different colors. This error is all over the internet, and all over the modeling world because of a mistake made in 1984.

 

Fortunately, anyone with the current SAE 595A booklet can see that the colors that many think are the same,,,,are back to being different again. (and that the GSA attempt to eliminate color names still hasn't succeeded)

 

(and for proof that Wiki is wrong,,,,,,FS 595A came out in 1968, not 1961)

[Rex]

I don't want to say much more here, because I don't want to overshadow Richard's work.

 

But, I will say, just read the actual text for the different years of the standards, or the Monogram books. Even in the 1984 Change notice, the one that says (in error) that the colors are the same if they are on the same line in the booklet, and then gives different data for colors in the data tables,,,,for all illuminants on a line. (two minutes, check data numbers for "x6440" or "x1136",,,,,you'll see that the data that can be used at Lowe's to make paints will make different colors, even though the front of the book says they will be the same) (heck, look at the CIELAB numbers in the current 595A from the SAE)

[Mstor]

I'm confused

[Falconxlvi]

This thread is drifting...but I’m grateful for the original post detailing our options for the F-35.  I’ve got the MRP and Mission Model paints in hand and I can definitely say the mission models paint looks much too “grainy”. 

 

Keep up the good work Richard!

 

Steve

Edited March 14, 2018 by Falconxlvi

[SebastianP]

8 hours ago, RichardL said:

 

These chips are supposed to be kept in their envelopes and stored in a dark, dry place when not in used, so they might not change that much over the years.

 

They're also replaced every two years by nearly everyone who uses them officially, whether they've been properly stored or not. Why would they do that if the colors never change?

 

5 hours ago, Rex said:

sorry, Sebastion, but Wiki is wrong.

 

Whoever wrote the latest version of that post on Wiki doesn't know that if 3 colors have/had different Munsell numbers at the time of the FS standard's publication,,,,,,they were different colors. This error is all over the internet, and all over the modeling world because of a mistake made in 1984.

 

Fortunately, anyone with the current SAE 595A booklet can see that the colors that many think are the same,,,,are back to being different again. (and that the GSA attempt to eliminate color names still hasn't succeeded)

 

(and for proof that Wiki is wrong,,,,,,FS 595A came out in 1968, not 1961)

 

Huh. And you have evidence of this? Because Wikipedia is the only reference I can find, and wherever the original article came from, it appears to be at least partially based on the official announcements, even if the list is incomplete. (for example, could it have been 595A Change 1 which was introduced in 1968? The article doesn't mention its existence, but it does skip directly to 595B Change 1 so we know it skipped some things...)

[Rex]

Okay, I see that there is no choice but to continue this here.

 

References:

Actual TT-C-595, actual FS 595 (0) 1956, actual FS 595A (January 1968) and change notice 1 (January 1968), and change notices and amendments for those, up to and including the Change Notice 7 with "550 colors" in  1984 (the one that caused this misinformation that "internet information" is based on), up to actual SAE 595A, the current standard.

 

There have also been 4 books written that have Appendices in the back, with Munsell numbers in them for colors, by Elliot published by Monogram. And actual Mil-Specs.

 

In any of them, you can see that Tristmustulus values, CIE-Lab values, or Munsell numbers are Different for many colors that the  Internet "research article writers" say are the same colors with the sheens changed.

 

It takes less than five minutes to learn this, just take an index card, lay it under "x1136" or "x6440", and write down the numbers on the card as you go from 11136 to 31136 or 16440, 26440, 36440,,,,,and then when you see the numbers are different, then you go look at other numbers, such as the Yellow or "Engine Gray."

 

Can't use a fandeck, because those aren't actual data, they aren't even paint on the cards, just inks printed on cardstock, sort of like the printed colors in the back of books published before people actually started providing paint chips glued to the back pages of the books.

 

Or, don't do the five minutes of work,,,,,,just ask yourself why some of the newer paint companies are including an "early and late" Flat Light Gull Gray 36440 in their paint ranges. They got the info somewhere, maybe from a full set of FS cards and booklets,,,,,or maybe from the Monogram color guides,,,,,,,,but, be assured they didn't just come up with it at the same time out of thin air. (and kudos to them for not just designing paints to sell based on Wiki Research) While at it, look at the change notice for 595(0) that says to use ANA colors instead of FS for some of the military colors,,,,,,,with an Amendment later on that states we can now go back to using FS 595 colors,,,,,,,during a time that many believe that ANA was not in use alongside the FS colors.

 

Keep up the good work Richard,,,,,it is great to see another person that is comparing paints by actually opening the bottles,,,,,,unlike all those spreadsheets online that say that all companies colors are the same, just because it says so on the labels.  (if those sites were correct, all of Richard's cards would look exactly the same, and they don't)

[Rex]

"Why would they do that if the colors never change?",,,,,,it is done by most, not all, because the colors might have changed due to improper storage or during usage in QC. Also, the cards are changed because the text in each A, B, C or SAE 595(0) and SAE 595A says to destroy the old cards whenever a new Revision is published. (it says that in the text portion of the booklets)

[RichardL]

10 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

I can see that.

 

Here is another example.  Let's say you are working on a Super Hornet and spray on a coat of Light Ghost Gray that's too purple.  When you try to weather the model by adding a little white or black your purple LGG and randomly spray mottle patterns, you won't completely hide the purple tint.  The white will make the purple tint slightly lighter.  The black will make the purple tint slightly darker.  This is why it's important to start out with a good matching color.

 

If you look at the Hornet pictures in the Great Navy Hornet Weathering Ref Shot, you will still see the original Light Ghost Gray and Dark Ghost Gray showing through.

[Rex]

Heck, just grabbing a random White or Black will also change the colors in ways that are not planned.

 

Since FS Whites and Blacks were different colors from each other,,,,,,if the model paint actually matches the FS standard,,,,,you might get different colors on two different models,,,,,,,while thinking you are using the "exact same color, just a different gloss."

[Darren Roberts]

3 hours ago, Rex said:

 

 

Keep up the good work Richard,,,,,it is great to see another person that is comparing paints by actually opening the bottles,,,,,,unlike all those spreadsheets online that say that all companies colors are the same, just because it says so on the labels.  (if those sites were correct, all of Richard's cards would look exactly the same, and they don't)

Just spray the different manufacturer's Light Gull Gray against each other and you'll see they are all different. I actually put that to good use to get some nice tonal variation.

[RichardL]

11 hours ago, Rex said:

I don't want to say much more here, because I don't want to overshadow Richard's work.

 

It's perfectly fine.  I always welcome great info for educational purposes.