wmcgill

In the 54 Squadron ORB, there is no record of Deere ever flying P9398. But it does show him in P9390 over two dozen times. Here is a page from the Kotare instructions which show a photo of what they say is P9390.

I really do recommend you read the newest Windsock for the most up to date take on the finish of the Dr.I. https://www.windsockdatafilespecials.co.uk/fokker-fidri-1441-p.asp

It was a very pale linen. Like a bleached linen bed sheet. Photos of damaged Dr.I with exposed interior fabric show it to be very very pale, or white. The interior linen would be white linen, but in shadow. Sort of light grey.

If it helps, this is what Kotare came up with for N3180 in May 1940. Image is from the Kotare instructions whice are on their website.

L1083 & L1085 had black and white wings with an aluminium nose and rear fuselage and empennage so it is reasonable to believe L1086 was the same. www.609wrsquadron.co.uk

It looks amazing but the engine was black during WWII, although that wouldn't look as impressive.

Maybe, but Tamiya were correct to omit them. I don't think I've ever seen ROLLS-ROYCE name plates on a WWII era Mk.IX engine, only on warbirds. And models. 331 or 332 Squadron Mk.IX (not Mk.XVI) engine to illustrate what is usually visible when exposed. Lots more great photos here https://foto.digitalarkivet.no/fotoweb/archives/5001-Historiske-foto/?q=spitfire

These are not the correct type for a Spitfire Mk.I, despite their description. You want something that looks like these ones from Eduard. Unfortunately, they are only in 1/48 scale. I don't think anyone does the correct type in 1/24 scale right now.

The Spitfire with the hood removed is P7447 VZ-A, which had been converted to a Mk.Va months before this film was taken. Yes it looks like the new scheme was repainted by brush.

If anyone does facebook, there is an interesting search for an interior green color to match a particular Mk.IX cockpit part which has some interesting results. https://m.facebook.com/wingleaderbooks

Flap interiors & wheel wells were painted the underside color, black/night. Lots of WWII color photos are still available on the wingnuts website http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/productdetail?productid=3193&cat=2

Not comprehensive but some good photos of a few different types https://www.historicflyingclothing.com/en-GB/search/page_906?search=sutton

I doubt they would have bothered stripping of the previous paint before repainting them in Night. Unless there was no rush, so that they could all be sent away to an MU to have it done, but I don't believe that was the case at the time.

This is the fuel tank wreckage from Mk.1 P9372.

Fixed like this panel?

The seat (along with the armour plate) will have been removed. Seats had to be regularly removed to access areas of the cockpit.

The IWM version of the photo.is much clearer.

This Mk.Vb/c bomb release drawing might still be appropriate for the Mk.VIII/IX.

I think if you can't tell the difference between the RX5/1 & RX5/3 it's because they look so similar almost no one can. If you/no one can tell the difference then the only way this really affects you is whether you treat/paint/weather your propeller blades as metal or wood.

The shapes of the RX5/3 spinner and Jablo propeller blades are different from the RX5/1's spinner and magnesium propeller blades.

The only photo I have seen of Spitfire Mk.IIa P7308 was taken in August 1941, at which time it was at 71 Squadron and had a Rotol RX5/3 Jablo wooden bladed propeller.

How would you explain the reality of the green colour of later RAF (& USAAF) bombs, which is also a colour not in your manual for bomb bodies?

This might help.

Just in case anyone is interested in calibrating their eyes with mine, these are the colours I see in the photograph.

It would appear that the British Inter-Service Ammunition and Ammunition Package Markings manual must have been considered quite irrelevant by those tasked with painting aerial bombs because bombs frequently did end up in a colour that almost everyone would consider to be "yellow". Manuals are obviously a good reference source but we shouldn't slavishly follow them when they're clearly contradicted by real world observations.