Stuka Ju 87B Cockpit Colours

[JohnT]

Fellow Bm'ers

 

I was just about to start a Ju 87B of the Battle of Britain period of Stg2 and like all good modellers had a trawl of the net to see what the consensus was as to the cockpit colours and a good read of a few books to boot.

 

Just as I was about to settle for RLM 02 for the overall colour in the cockpit and RLM 66 for the instrument panel which seems the broad consensus for pre 1941 I find this which may throw a small (large?) spanner in the works?

 

On reading Luftwaffe Camo and markings 33-45 Photo Archive 1 there are some good photos of cockpit interiors.  One caption for a photo of the rear gunners area reads:-

"While the Ju 87B machine gun retention locks and the cross frame below the gun were painted in 02, the rest of the cockpit was bare metal other than the gunners seat and the inside of the canopy framework."

 

Certainly the areas described looks like unpainted metal in the photos but all the usual warnings re interpretation of black and white photos apply

 

So are we wrong to paint the whole tub in RLM 02?  Sounds like it if the authors are correct and I think the book and series is pretty well regarded?

 

Answers on a postcard/ post below please!

 

Oh and as for RLM 02 apparently the colour of paint didn't change till later but earlier different lacquers were applied.  Quite what that does to tone before adding the old "scale colour" chestnut I am not sure.    Anyway  I can easily use RLM 02 for the area it was on  - but what about those seemingly unpainted areas?

 

bestest to all

 

John

 

 

 

 

[fightersweep]

Hi John;

 

Although I don't know the correct answer myself, I'm glad you asked as I'm eyeing up the 1/24 Airfix Ju-87 in my stash and would like to know myself. The notion of mainly bare metal for the gunner's section is very interesting!

 

Best regards;

Steve

Edited July 25, 2017 by fightersweep

[FatFlyHalf]

John T,

I think a bare metal finish in the rear half of the cockpit well would be just wrong.  Why, when building the aircraft, would the manufacturer just paint the area in which the pilot sat?  It would be easy enough for them to spray (or brush) RLM02 over the entire cockpit interior before fitting it out.

From all the stuff I've read, and photo's I've seen the whole cockpit wall, front and back, appears to be RLM02, with other items in RLM66, RLM22, etc..

Unless anyone proves otherwise - or has specific details for a specific aircraft -  I would go by the following guidelines:

Prior to November 1941 RLM regulations stated that cockpits/crew areas were to be RLM02, with the exception of instrument panels, which were RLM66 with black instrument faces.

After November 1941, all areas visible through the windows of the cockpit, etc. was to be in RLM66. 

Additionally, colour coded services lines were as follows; fuel lines yellow, oil lines brown, coolant green, oxygen blue and fire extinguisher red.

That's my thoughts.  I hope it helps?

FatFlyHalf

[JohnT]

Hi FatFlyhalf,

That seems wrong typing that 😁

 

You and I think alike but the book threw me for sure. It's by Eddie Creek, Brett Green and KA Merrick so I did pause for thought hence opening this topic.

 

Stuff getting a new doctor who.  Why is there no available Britmodeller Tardis when we need one to check these things out.

[Mike]

50 minutes ago, JohnT said:

Why is there no available Britmodeller Tardis when we need one to check these things out.

 

I'll add that to our feature requests for the next version of the software

[tango98]

John,

Copies of Junkers documents that I have specify 02 for the crew areas of the Ju 87 although if I remember correctly, 66 began to make its appearance in these areas very late in the production of the B2 and R variants.

Odd that, that both Ken and Eddie would have worded the caption that way as they both had copies of these documents (which is where my copies came from).

 

HTH

Dave

Edited July 25, 2017 by tango98

[JohnT]

16 minutes ago, tango98 said:

John,

Copies of Junkers documents that I have specify 02 for the crew areas of the Ju 87 although if I remember correctly, 66 began to make its appearance in these areas very late in the production of the B2 and R variants.

Odd that, that both Ken and Eddie would have worded the caption that way as they both had copies of these documents (which is where my copies came from).

 

HTH

Dave

Dave

That's very helpful.  Apart from being useless with pics I didn't think I could or should reproduce the photos in the book but the metal in the pics does look er shiny! 

Photos taken of a one off maybe??

Oh how the Gods of modelling accuracy chose to destroy us by driving us insane.

[Stonar]

30 minutes ago, tango98 said:

John,

Copies of Junkers documents that I have specify 02 for the crew areas of the Ju 87 although if I remember correctly, 66 began to make its appearance in these areas very late in the production of the B2 and R variants.

Odd that, that both Ken and Eddie would have worded the caption that way as they both had copies of these documents (which is where my copies came from).

 

HTH

Dave

In another picture (on page 136) showing the area immediately aft of the pilot the authors do note that that what they reckon to be "the bare metal for the floor section and wall" are "counter to the internal painting standard of the day."

I'm not sure that I agree with all their assessment, but there are surely some unpainted parts seen.

Cheers

Steve

[JohnT]

7 minutes ago, Stonar said:

In another picture (on page 136) showing the area immediately aft of the pilot the authors do note that that what they reckon to be "the bare metal for the floor section and wall" are "counter to the internal painting standard of the day."

I'm not sure that I agree with all their assessment, but there are surely some unpainted parts seen.

Cheers

Steve

 

Intriguing.  Just goes to show that just when you think you have nailed something down along comes an exception.  Still think I will go for RLM 02 throughout.  Or does anyone want to egg me on with some natural metal in some areas?

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Hello gentlemen ... im not an expert on Junkers nor one on Reichs ministry color orders. But both explanations seem plausible to me. If you take a step back and view it from my perspective. As I've said elsewhere on BM remember this. A photograph is a captured moment in time. Now if we look at this through a different set of lenses. Could it not be that they all were supposed to come from the factory painted. Or is it possible there was a limited amount of paint available and junkers just cheated ? Now this particular aircraft was missed ( not likely) but could it be that this aircraft was photographed during painting ? Was it repaired or repainted in the field ? Example maybe the factory paint was damged and some maintenance Feldwebel ordered a flunkie to scrape it and repair/repaint it. Then before said flunkie had a chance to do the repaint the aircraft crewmen took the photo to show his girl where he worked ? For that matter could the previous occupant been wounded during combat ? And after repairs the photo was taken before the area could be repainted. My point is this unless you find a whole group of pictures from multiple aircraft, and somehow they all show this bare metal section ?  This seems likely to be a fluke. Is this an original photo of an original aircraft? Was it taken in 1940 by Junkers or was it taken by someone in a maintenance facility or in a squadron six months or a year later ?  Too many factors tell me stick with the Reichs paperwork orders. This seems to me to be the case of an odd ball that got photographed. 

[JohnT]

1 hour ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Hello gentlemen ... im not an expert on Junkers nor one on Reichs ministry color orders. But both explanations seem plausible to me. If you take a step back and view it from my perspective. As I've said elsewhere on BM remember this. A photograph is a captured moment in time. Now if we look at this through a different set of lenses. Could it not be that they all were supposed to come from the factory painted. Or is it possible there was a limited amount of paint available and junkers just cheated ? Now this particular aircraft was missed ( not likely) but could it be that this aircraft was photographed during painting ? Was it repaired or repainted in the field ? Example maybe the factory paint was damged and some maintenance Feldwebel ordered a flunkie to scrape it and repair/repaint it. Then before said flunkie had a chance to do the repaint the aircraft crewmen took the photo to show his girl where he worked ? For that matter could the previous occupant been wounded during combat ? And after repairs the photo was taken before the area could be repainted. My point is this unless you find a whole group of pictures from multiple aircraft, and somehow they all show this bare metal section ?  This seems likely to be a fluke. Is this an original photo of an original aircraft? Was it taken in 1940 by Junkers or was it taken by someone in a maintenance facility or in a squadron six months or a year later ?  Too many factors tell me stick with the Reichs paperwork orders. This seems to me to be the case of an odd ball that got photographed. 

 

 

And one more thing to add into the mix - there are three or so photos taken at varying angles.  The machine gun magazines look clean, pristine and have been numbered in small white paint numbers.  The overall finish is very clean and pristine.  It makes me wonder when in the life of this machine the photos were taken.  Looking through the perspex outside the aircraft one sees its indoors in a hanger or factory (doors/walls).  I think on balance its maybe newly delivered given there are ammunition magazines in evidence on the aircraft but thats a wild guess on my part with not much evidence to support that.

[JohnT]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

 

I'll add that to our feature requests for the next version of the software

 

Mike - I have photos of kids pouring over a crashed one in 1940.  One looks like you.  You can't recall what the inside looked like can you?  

[tango98]

The removable magazines for Luftwaffe aircraft were generally kept pretty clean and it's not unusual to see numbers painted on both these and the weapons themselves.

As for the photo itself, it could have been taken at any time during the life of the aircraft and there is also the possibility that they had been installed just prior to the photo being taken. Also to be considered is that it might just be a factory shot for some reason or other and that the magazines are empty.

 

Cheers

Dave

 

[JPuente54]

Just when you thought it was safe to dip the brush into the paint jar......(dadadadadad(think "Jaws" theme)dadadadad)

[Stonar]

2 hours ago, tango98 said:

they had been installed just prior to the photo being taken. Also to be considered is that it might just be a factory shot for some reason or other and that the magazines are empty.

 

Cheers

Dave

 

The three Ju 87 photographs in question are part of a series and, given the consecutive numbers, taken at the same time and place. The pictures were taken in or immediately outside a hangar, factory or other facility (obvious in the one numbered 78949). I have tried to decipher the writing visible on a wall or door in the background but without success.

They look like they might have been taken for a manual or handbook, but that's conjecture on my part.

Cheers

Steve

[Mike]

4 hours ago, JohnT said:

 

Mike - I have photos of kids pouring over a crashed one in 1940.  One looks like you.  You can't recall what the inside looked like can you?  

 

You cheeky wee rapscallion!

[JPuente54]

There was a thread here a couple of months about the color of the cockpit of the Dornier Do 17Z. It turned out that they were painted in RLM 66 Schwartzgrau, not RLM 02 Grau with RLM 66 for the instrument panels. One of the posters was able to quote the documentation for this. As I wrote earlier; just when........ The gods of modelling do have a sense of humour.

[Tonka]

Well, if I was You  I would go with Your Author.

If You have pics from the War Era better to be cautious since those pics are not too

believeable because secrecy and censors of that time.

Even manufacturers guides are not followed as We think they would, I like to use the

example of the Republic F-105 T.Os. where the painting guide says to paint the anti glare

panel and spine Green but the Author doubts if any F-105 had that green applied ever.

So Your Author is (are) the best refference You have.

I am building  the "Spitschmitt"  DB-605 engined Spitfire and had too many doubts about

colours, details, etc... and all I have are 4 pics B/W if so.

So I decided to stuck on the Author (who is very well credited) reference He made in His

book about the Spitfire.

 

Tonka

[JPuente54]

Mike, did you get a sonic screwdriver to help tweak the new software update? Dave, factory photos of that sort are done by almost all aircraft makers; that may be the case here. Or, not. That is the maddening factor here; but, it does get the creative juices flowing at times.

[Marvel Onkey]

This seems like a case where the evidence that truly proves the point one way or another has disappeared in the fog and chaos of war. on that basis it seems to me that, in the absence of anything truly conclusive for the plane you want to model, you are at liberty to choose which version of the interior you find most pleasing to you.

 

As the general consensus of the assembled experten here (and we really do have a number of experts) is that there isn't definitive evidence for the interior paint scheme backed up with contemporaneous references and well-provenanced photos then so long as you go with either RLM02 / RLM 66 or RLM02 / RLM66 / Bare Metal then you'll be on firm ground with anyone who looks at your model and says 'that's wrong'.