tempestfan

I have an entirely different reading of it.

That's for 83 Dunkelblau - I could've sworn you also tried the 81 formulae?

That may likely be the case, but IIRC for some time it was stated all CB Mk IIs were in the P7xxx range (and P7xxx contained nothing else, apart from black out blocks), but if I'm not mistaken the IIs extended into low P8xxx, and there were a couple of odd men out (in the meaning of "not Spit II") in the P7xxx range as well.

That approach makes a lot of sense, but may I object to "A1, A2" etc being arbitrary - if the formulae are genuine, then there is no arbitrariness at all, as the A1 etc is an official mix of pigments and corresponds to a specific shade - I think @Casey tried the mixes and got results - and can be linked to a specific title, like Braunviolett, Dunkelgrün, ein bißchen mehr Olivgrün. I'd claim linking the variant to a name may now be the easy part, the hard one still remains to interpret the pics to make an educated guess what we actually see there...Three sanctioned variants of 81 and 82 each with the chance of 70 or 71 being used up also in the mix makes for good fun guessing.

@Mark Robson - Kotare - whatever you do, you can only do it wrong... There was (another) discussion of this topic some six weeks ago. But during this discussion, a reference to a recent book was posted, which includes a document that I personally consider crucial in this discussion, and which I have typed out in German with my full translation here. It is inevitable people will be confused if you mention RLM 81 Dunkelgrün, RLM 81 Braunviolett and/or 83 - and what to call 83, is it dark or is it the somewhat grassy lighter green? If we consider the document genuine (and I think this is supported by the formulae for three variants of 81, tallying with the document), I think you could do worse to include an explainer in the instructions - that the latest research suggests that there were three distinct variants of 81, and that there was also the order to consume existing stocks of 70 and 71, so there are a number of possible combinations and any attempt to establish a "definite" match is bound to fail - it will always be an interpretation of the available info. So if you think one of the colours is the Braunviolett variety, tag it as "81A2" (don't nail me which formula gives which result and was allocated which identifier) and tell the builder that he should look for a Braunviolett, whichever number the paint manufacturer chose to allocate (or you can name the various brands with their number, with the explanation everyone should be capable to understand why you may hav both 81 Braunviolett and 81 Dark (or Olive) Green).

In case noone else said this in the intervening 4 years: The B shows it is not reversed.

Now I feel the urge to say "Cutlass".

Many thanks for the insights! I guess the low to non-existent (speculative) traffic in this thread is a sign we are just doing this.

While likely a lot of parts were interchangeable, there will be engineering bounds to this and considerations like CoG aspects etc. This is not Lego were you can happily combine any pieces. In addition, as for obvious reasons they strived to maintain a high level of uniformity in component manufacture, I see no reason why superceded components like G-2 wings should be kept in production to be fitted to newer-version fuselages. And do you really believe in "Hey, we got a stack of old G-2 wings in the shed, let's put them onto our G-10 fuselages to clear them out" happened at Regensburg, WNF, Erla or wherever? I have a lot more sympathy with using old stocks regarding paints used, as this was officially ordered. While not taking the view that there were no regulations to adhere to - absolutely not, as there were plenty -, this is basically Apples and Oranges. A war time bureaucracy that has its backs increasingly to the wall and with its logistics being increasingly interdicted will be forced to adapt to this in order to maintain supplies. Still, as you say, one reaction to this situation was the 81, 81A etc directive.

I must have struck that very ugly box from my mind - thanks Richard for remembering me 😉

Awesome! I have a soft spot for the Vixen, gloss black is just the right colour for her (but a nightmare to apply well), and she looks great in her Kleines Schwarzes. Is the HPM kit still available?

They are coming along very nicely. Fortunately I have no shelf of doom (only a couple of boxes of doom). Unfortunately I have made no attempt at anything resembling kit building for almost 20 years, which somewhat explains the former. Three observations if I may, and meant entirely constructive: 1. No G had tailplane struts. I ***think*** the F prototypes did, and possibly the F-1 (but I think not). 2. The round wheel wells were an exclusive feature of the/most Fs (would have to check, I have something in my mind the F-4 reverted to rectangular outers). 3. The MG FF underwing bulges of the Italeri puzzle me no end - no 109 after the E had internal wing cannon. Were they a feature of the kit? 4. (and well, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition) The Italeri appears to have the wing spar bolt coverings only as an engraving (but why, given it obviously has a one-piece underwing?) Check the sprues if still existant whether they lurk somewhere. 5. Your choice of the 02 makes for a pretty stark contrast, it appears a tad light, but then this is subjective. However, I'd suggest that by the time the F was introduced, the 71/02 combination had been superceded by 74/75, let alone when the G came in. JG54 had a couple of very interesting green/brown schemes on Fs, but AFAIA not 02 - @SafetyDad?

Put into service as HMS Submarine Phantom?

1959 - Lindström is an elegant contraction of Lines/Hellström 😉 The only things I could imagine they added may be the RPs, as they look surprisingly neat (too?) for a 1959 kit. But if that was the case, there would have been next to nothing in the original box. Let's call it "shake'n'bake". It has something of a recognition model in its simplicity. In case you consider a quick embellishment: Take off the RPs and turn them 45° so they are an X to the rails instead of a +.

It is! OK, then I can save the time having a look.