109G Camo Patterns

[Sean_M]

I am sure I am about to start a can of worms. After trolling the internet I can't seem to find any definitive information on a standard, I suspect much had to do with where an aircraft was manufactured, Eduard seem to have a few varied schemes in there latest 109G Kits, I would appreciate any info on any type of standard.

[Roman Schilhart]

Examples for the camouflages of the German Luftwaffe in WW2:

pre-war camouflage until approx. 1938 61/62/63

early biplane-fighters, prototypes 02

splinter camouflage (green) - aircrafts except sea-aircrafts until the end of 1939, later bomber, transport aircrafts and battle-aircrafts 65/70/71

3- color desert camouflage (Africa) 78/79/80

nightfighter (firstly black only) 75/76

fighters approx. since the end of 1939 65/70/71

fighters France and Battle of Britain often 02/65/71

attack camouflage of fighters from 1941 until 1944 7475/76

fighters (Bf-109 etc) 1944-45 76(84)/81/82(83)

Source: http://www.rlm.at/cont/archiv01_e.htm

I hope this is useful.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Roman Schilhart

[Graham Boak]

The factory building late war Bf 109Gs can be identified by the camouflage pattern in a number of cases: look specifically to see how the treatment of the mottling on the fuselage varies. For example, Regensberg aircraft have angled broad bands - at least for some given period! The splinter pattern on the wing varied throughout the war: I've seen a number of drawings showing these different types as seen on different variants, but don't recall any specifically by factory - except the sawtooth effect seen on some recce examples.

I don't know of any single source giving a complete run-down of all possible variants split down by factory and date, but there are a number of excellent books on the subject!

[Sean_M]

Examples for the camouflages of the German Luftwaffe in WW2:

pre-war camouflage until approx. 1938 61/62/63

early biplane-fighters, prototypes 02

splinter camouflage (green) - aircrafts except sea-aircrafts until the end of 1939, later bomber, transport aircrafts and battle-aircrafts 65/70/71

3- color desert camouflage (Africa) 78/79/80

nightfighter (firstly black only) 75/76

fighters approx. since the end of 1939 65/70/71

fighters France and Battle of Britain often 02/65/71

attack camouflage of fighters from 1941 until 1944 7475/76

fighters (Bf-109 etc) 1944-45 76(84)/81/82(83)

Source: http://www.rlm.at/cont/archiv01_e.htm

I hope this is useful.

Thank for the link this seals with just the colours. I am looking for layouts of the sprays patterns

[Parabat]

Ha ha, a big can of worms! The MMP book on Late 109G's has some excellent work done on trying to tie down patterns, but it remains very non-uniform. In some aspects this makes it easier when doing an early G as it's generally going to be something similar to what's on the camo marking sheet. There are some dubious patterns and colour callouts from some books written in the 70's and 80's and no doubt from some early decal sheets. Later G's varied widely as the planes were built from subcomntracted parts and assemblies that might mismatch colours, or not be painted at all. This is especially noticeable with the RLM 76b shade, a more RAF Sky than Lichtblau on undersurfaces and flanks, with a Lichtgrau engine cowling, for example.

In terms of patterns, there doesn't seem to be a definitive standard that I can find, but I would look at photos of a specific plane if available, or trust the instructions. Their patterns certainly weren't as prescriptive as the RAF's.

This is a good book, well researched and with a lot good photos.

[Sean_M]

book on its way thanks

[Sean_M]

I recon that I will need to do at lest 4 mask sets. After that the modeller is will have to use blue tac

[Zaggy]

By Late 1944, all bets are off! yes specific Factories (and sub-assemblies from contractors) have common traits, but once the a/c gets to the unit, gets damaged, gets fixed and set to another unit, that does a power egg swap and some unit level repairs, you wont find much in the way of generic, specific shapes anymore!

For Bf 109G's, Fw 190D's, and etc, it's a case of go with what you have in front of you - and by that I mean references. As long as what you apply has the same tonal differences as what you see in a B&W picture, and what you can't see follows the logical 'tendancies' of similar WNr's, it's going to be hard for anyone to call you out on it... For me, I go to the Japo books first - I don't always agree with them, but for me its a great place to start. That MMP book mentioned above, I rate quite highly too, as with the Brett Green Eagle Files - Augsburgs Last Eagles.

But I keep coming back to it, look at the references, paint the camo pattern you see, with the colours that you feel were used...


dan

[Fernando]

By Late 1944, all bets are off! yes specific Factories (and sub-assemblies from contractors) have common traits, but once the a/c gets to the unit, gets damaged, gets fixed and set to another unit, that does a power egg swap and some unit level repairs, you wont find much in the way of generic, specific shapes anymore!

Hi, Zaggy,

That's simply not the case. Regarding the pattern, not the colours, at least. Late 109G/Ks show a remarkably consistent disruptive camouflage pattern in the upper wing surfaces (fuselage and mottling are an entirely different issue) in the "flowing" variety (as opposed to "splinter" -even the late "splinter pattern" was very consistent - and so were the previous ones).

The same can be said about 190A/D. There are just a few, clearly recognizable and consistent patterns.

Fernando

Edited August 30, 2016 by Fernando

[Zaggy]

Fernando, when they come out of the factory and sent to their first units, I agree... But once the units start working on them, depot-level repairs happen, etc, these factory specific traits begin to blur. The wings as you point are a good example of where things DO tend to stay the same; those sets were produced and painted long before being installed and as they were generally installed or replaced as a set; much easier to 'trace the origin' of them.

But then as soon as you define a 'typical' scheme for a WNr block, you'll find something that completely contradicts that scheme in that same WNr block. Hence why I am a fan of only using the 'typical' as a start point, and after that just paint what you see in references.


D

[Sean_M]

The idea is to produce 5 typical mask sets and the modeller can rake it rom there

[Hotel Papa]

The idea is to produce 5 typical mask sets and the modeller can rake it rom there

Dunno about masks for some of the patterns. Look at at the upper surface of a G-6 wing that Brett Green posted in his review of the Eduard Model. Those jagged edges seem to be the result of wide sweeps with the spray gun. I don't think that that effect can be replicated with a mask. Best thing a modeler can do is try to duplicate the very action of the guy in the paintshop.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Hotel Papa

[Fernando]

Dunno about masks for some of the patterns. Look at at the upper surface of a G-6 wing that Brett Green posted in his review of the Eduard Model. Those jagged edges seem to be the result of wide sweeps with the spray gun. I don't think that that effect can be replicated with a mask. Best thing a modeler can do is try to duplicate the very action of the guy in the paintshop.

Hi, Hotel Papa,

The thing is the "scale". A 1/1 scale tight free hand spray gun application could be best mimicked in usual modeling scales by masking. The German practice is a good example. The "sawtooth" scheme is an even better example of that; though the original, 1/1 scale, was undoubtely made free hand, in modelling scale it is next to impossible.

Fernando

[Hotel Papa]

A 1/1 scale tight free hand spray gun application could be best mimicked in usual modeling scales by masking.

Have you looked at the photo? Paint application is far from "tight". Plus, the pattern shows clear indications of the spray gun being held at an angle, giving a rather tight edge on one side and a feathered edge at the other.

I don't see how achieving this result is any more impossible than the various soft edged German mottles on fuselage sides, which are attempted by modellers all the time. It may require partial masking for the tight portion of the edge, but that can be achieved with a mobile "shade"

[Fernando]

Have you looked at the photo? Paint application is far from "tight". Plus, the pattern shows clear indications of the spray gun being held at an angle, giving a rather tight edge on one side and a feathered edge at the other.

I don't see how achieving this result is any more impossible than the various soft edged German mottles on fuselage sides, which are attempted by modellers all the time. It may require partial masking for the tight portion of the edge, but that can be achieved with a mobile "shade"

Hotel Papa,

Have you? It doesn't show an entirely "jagged-edge splinter pattern" but one mixed to a "flowing disruptive" scheme. Entirely different proposition. Even so, and considering that obviously the RLM74 was painted over the 75, and the age of the relic, you have no way of knowing how much or the 74 has been erased (the density in which it has been sprayed is not even; and signs of paint erosion are clearly visible), possibly increasing the look of a "feathered edge". Period pictures of "sawtooth-ed" machines show a very tight pattern. Even so (2), you are conceding that "partial masking" would be necessary (yes, I would also use a "floating mask"); just try to reproduce the almost-90 degrees angles while keeping the overspray and paint density under control, without the aid of a mask. Even so (3), mottling is again an entirely different proposition, in that, in most cases, mottles are rather "transparent" in nature (in some cases, they are very definite and "hard-edged"), and in most cases they are shapeless and give the modeller a lot of margin to correct them.

Regards

Edited September 1, 2016 by Fernando

[Zaggy]

I kind of have to agree with Fernando - your typical factory 'feathered' edge on Lw camo, excluding mottles and the like, was no more than 2 inches (50mm) at best. In 1/48 that translates to 0.1mm. To put that into context, 0.1mm is less than the width of the stroke from the pen that you write your shopping list with! So a hard edge mask is a pretty good place to start; if you REALLY need the feathered 'feel', just lift the mask edges a little (or a Floating Mask as Fernando says) or spray from 45deg over the mask, to create that fine feather-edge.

Next issue is that there were other things painted by BRUSH in camo patterns (Bf 109G/K and Me 262 Tail Units immediately come to mind) - they're instantly going to have a hard edge...


D