Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

SafetyDad

Gold Member
  • Content Count

    458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

567 Excellent

1 Follower

About SafetyDad

  • Rank
    Always plan for the future...
  • Birthday 05/08/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NE England

Recent Profile Visitors

353 profile views
  1. SafetyDad

    Postage rates

    I sell regularly on eBay and use Small Parcel Royal Mail 2nd Class Signed for. I've tried Hermes but it was a bit sketchy to more rural locations - 12 days (pre-Covid) to the Isle of Man for example. Cost is £4.10 and the limits are 45 times 35 times 16cm. Max weight 2kg. Great for kits usually BUT you have to be careful with the dimensions. Airfix use a box for some kits that's just too big for this at 46cm long so you're into Medium Parcel territory (why did they do that? The pieces would have fitted into a slightly smaller box!) I got caught out with this recently selling a TSR.2 and had to absorb the excess cost myself. SD
  2. Nice job ! Worth the time and trouble I would say SD
  3. Nice pictures @dogsbody - thanks Has that last one (or last two?) had the canopy rear overpainted or is that an optical illusion? SD
  4. At the time authenticity of scheme was not considered a priority. The war was over, people were pleased to be looking forward, and on both sides of the Atlantic there were displays of captured aircraft scheduled to showcase the technology involved. If you are sceptical about the authenticity of the Ta 152 scheme, then what about this? Source Smith R. & Creek E. (1982) Jet Planes of the Third Reich Monogram Publications Boylston Mass USA p.319 I have to admit that a small part of me would like to build this He 162. After all, the colour scheme is real and documented here. 'Authentic' in the sense that it really existed. No different to other models of captured Luftwaffe aircraft eh? And certainly not a scheme you see every day either. I wonder who does decals for this? Well off track now on this thread. Sorry @Werdna SD
  5. Thank you very much @Seahawk! It's been a while since I looked at that publication even though I have a copy! The picture you refer to is here: Source Ethell J (1990) Monogram Close Up 24 Ta 152 Monogram Publications Boylston Mass USA As Seahawk has described, here is a genuine (if slightly washed out) colour picture of the NASM Ta 152. It seems to have been taken later than the lower picture in post#4, only now it has a green 4 marking! This I now recall is what I considered to be the real problem in the NASM machine actually being accepted as Green 4 - the number seems to have been added at Wright Field! It's crooked in application and too fresh to be convincing in my view. Now there are other possibilities here (such as the aircraft may have been marked as Green 4 and then this removed as part of a repaint), but I remain to be convinced (as I said earlier) that this machine was actually Green 4 with JG301. And also mindful of hijacking @Werdna's thread about Staffel numbers I think that's all I'll say about this particular airframe at this point. SD
  6. That's a very interesting (and helpful) observation. I suspect the slight differences noted by @Werdnamay be due to perspective - I photographed the book page with my iPhone rather than scan the image, so there is some image distortion present as a result. Look at the spinners of both aircraft. The retouched picture would seem to be the origin of the markings used by Frog for their 1/72 Ta 152H. The lower picture still shows the British roundels in place (already overpainted with replica Luftwaffe crosses), but no number 4. However the remnants of the Stammkenzeichen CW+CJ can be seen - hence my scepticism about this being 'Green 4'.
  7. Sorry @Werdna I missed this point in your post. I'm not sure about this - in general aircraft numbers in active fighter units were below 15, which is entirely to be expected as a Staffel was nominally about 12 aircraft. I seem to recall that some Staffelkapitans favoured the number '13', but I can't remember where I read that, and I may be incorrect on that point. Some senior pilots had 'favourite' numbers that they wished to retain as they received new or replacement machines (for example Gerd Barkhorn favoured the number '5' and Klaus Faber of JV44 the number '13'). Of course, the counter argument that pilots flew what was available also has merit. There's no mention of a Green 8 in the Hitchcock volume (doesn't mean it didn't exist). As always, there were exceptions. The Bf 109G-10 nightfighters of NJG11 used white numbers in the 40s for instance, with JG301 (the same unit as the Ta 152s above) using white numbers in the 20s, 30s and 40s on their Fw 190s and Bf109G-10s as well. However these exceptions above are both late-war examples and not that typical. The Kommodore of JG301 in 1945 is thought to have intentionally deviated from the established colours for Gruppe bars on the unit's aircraft as a means of deceiving Allied intelligence about available aircraft numbers - perhaps the high numbers I mention might be a part of that ploy? Just speculation on my part... An important exception to the above principle is the training units which used higher numbers (often much higher using 3 digits) as a means of identification. HTH SD
  8. Postscript: Having checked a number of sources, the Alteno picture is cropped above and other publications show it with a wider view as here: Source (1984) Fw 190D & Ta 152 JaPo Prague The NASM pictures are here, showing this machine with two distinct repaints, neither of which features 'Green 4'. It is the same airframe - check the mottles on the cowl and scoop. I do wonder if 'Green 4' is one of those errors repeated so often in print that it's now just accepted? Source Krzyzan M (1995) Fw 190D Ta 152 A J Press Gdansk SD
  9. Righto Werdna The Ta 152Hs in JG301 were initially allocated to 11/JG301 and wore yellow numbers. Confirmed are Yellow 1, 2 and 3 all with unknown Werknummeren. The famous picture of 11/JG301 at Alteno shows 6 aircraft at least, but the other tactical numbers are not visible. All wear a yellow horizontal III Gruppe band superimposed over the yellow/red RVD band on the fuselage. As here: Yellow 1, 3 and 2 are visible (in that order) and the caption identifies the nearest machine as 'Yellow 7'. Source: Hitchcock T (2010) The Focke Wulf Ta 152 Eagle Editions, Hamilton MT USA - uploaded for the purpose of discussion After March 13th 1945 the JG301 Kommodore reallocated the Ta 152Hs into a III Gruppe Stabsschwarm. Numbers and horizontal bars changed to green. Green 6 and 9, plus White 7 are confirmed by photographic evidence. Green 9 was flown in the UK by Cmdr Eric Brown and appeared at the Farnborough captured aircraft show in late 1945. Other Green numbers, such as 3, are known from pilot logbooks (Willi Reschke in this case). I'm not convinced that the NASM machine was Green 4 as this airframe has had multiple repaints. I have a Czech monogram on the Ta 152 containing a picture of the NASM machine with no codes. I appreciate that I'm in a minority on this, and others will differ (for example Jerry Crandall). I remain open to be convinced. Source - as above HTH SD
  10. I could go with that - the camera is mounted right where it would have the most extreme effect upon trim in terms of yaw and the counter weight on the starboard side (if that's what it is) is aerodynamically shaped). But what were they filming? And what's the aerial? Not being awkward, just speculating... SD
  11. Well the mystery deepens! This is from p. 95 of Widfeldt B. (1983) The Luftwaffe in Sweden 1939-1945 Monogram Boylston Ma USA As you can see the pods differ markedly from each other, plus there is a lateral aerial array on the port wing tip. The text refers to the port wing pod being a movie camera. The book also has a clearer shot of the camo scheme, which, as the text notes, is so heavily oversprayed as to almost obscure the national markings. Picture source: as above HTH SD
  12. SafetyDad

    Is it me?

    I feel I have to gently disagree with you here. I haven't built the Trimaster 262 (although I have several in the stash) but I have built their Fw190F-8 which had a terrible on-line reputation for the cowl pieces being problematic. I couldn't see the issue - a little MEK, some patience, and a great result. Can't disagree with your point about the Tamiya equivalents to Trimaster fitting well (their He 162 is just beautiful), it's just sometimes that sometimes I feel there's an on-line tendency to knock some manufacturers in a rather generalised way about fit. But then there's Mach 2... Their reputation for fit issues does appear to be justified... Just my 2c SD
  13. Very very nice indeed. Love your paintwork and weathering - its really well done. The underside black is especially well represented. SD
  14. Thanks GRM for the (as always) concise and helpful information. Pics of White 5 are widely available online - as here HTH SD
  15. Lovely work so far there Collin. Who made the 2 stage engines that you're using? Nice job blending them in SD
×
×
  • Create New...