SafetyDad

I bought this sheet a while ago I haven't used any of the options yet, but I did note that some of the research behind the sheet seemed a little lacking - the RAF Fortress ECM aircraft take a bit of unravelling, and the DK instructions omitted some key points such as Cheyenne tail turrets - were they used or not? DK says not, but Martin Streetley says it was on the option provided on the sheet. The RAF codes also seem a little brighter than I would expect, although a gentle overspray of smoke might tone that down. On the upside, plenty of options on my sheet so it scores on the value-for-money stakes. I suppose it depends on how well you know your subject, and whether DK's research agrees with yours. HTH SD

I've had a skim through some of my references, and this might not be an easy question to answer. A big obstacle to being able to pin down any change is the availability, or rather the non-availability, of photos. As photos are very often taken on the ground, from the height of the photographer, the seat is not visible. Even pictures taken by an observer on the wing root don't help much. And these often have a pilot who, very inconsiderately, blocks our view. Neither the Prien and Rodeike book, nor the Monogram German Interiors volume, make any mention within their text of this change of seat. The best I can offer is this heavily retouched image (perhaps from a wartime handbook?) This image is from the Monogram book, and appears in the section on the Bf 109F-2 SD

And a +1 from me. To my eyes your choice of PR scheme also seems to have the happy, if unintended, effect of toning down the nose faults with the Academy kit. The nose looks more in proportion than other camouflaged builds I've seen of this kit. Great overall job SD

Thanks Andrew SD

Martin Pegg in Schlachtfleiger 'Luftwaffe Ground Attack Units 1937-1945 P.43 states that 4.SG2 still had three Hs 123s on strength in November 1944! SD

The Hs 123 served for quite a bit longer than you might think. Martin Pegg's book on the Hs 129 mentions an airfield defence engagement on the Eastern Front on Jan 9th 1944, where Fw 190s and Hs 123s repelled advancing Soviet forces. I seem to recall that Hs 123 pilots were very fond indeed of their machines, and that some hesitant proposals were made in 1944 to restart production to replace losses. However Henschel had by then disposed of all jigs and equipment associated with Hs 123 manufacture. so this proved impossible. I'll see if I can locate the reference for that last point SD

+1 for Martin Streetley's book - concise and detailed. A good reference for the multiplicity of German ECM fits SD

Thanks Daniel - that was new to me and a very informative read. I hadn't realised that this aircraft operated so far from home (or that German and Japanese servicemen interacted in this way). I knew about submarines taking plans and dissembled aircraft to Japan, but that was it. SD

Thanks for these pictures. One point that strikes me - the nosecone appears to be light metal, where all the references I can recall stated that it was moulded plywood. SD

Koster kits were towards the top of the vacform world back in the day. I remember reading Jack Walsh reviewing the A-20 in FSM in the 1980s - he was very impressed and his finished build looked excellent. I also have this Dornier (SOD I'm afraid) and the B-24 set that Troy refers to. Koster did some great p/e and white metal details - the German guns in 1/48 are still worth seeking out. Back OT - looking good Loren. Nearly there! SD

The letter A should be bright green (RLM 25 Hellgrun). The last letter of the code - 'B' - shows that this aircraft belonged to the Stab. of the 1st Gruppe. Other code letters should be black. Other photos of the Fokkers in SAGr 126 show that there were no individual aircraft letters repeated above the wing, and that the upperwing Balkenkreuz was rather unusually applied - it's right at the wing tip on these aircraft. The linked photos to the FalkeEins blog appear to show the individual aircraft letter only beneath at least the port wing (I would be confident that this letter appeared under both wings, outboard of the cross). Given the small numbers of Fokkers operated by the Luftwaffe, and that these were operated within the same unit, a little generalisation from other photos is perhaps not too unreasonable. The original caption in the reference source (below) highlights the missing starboard Pratt and Whitney engine on the aircraft above, and speculates on the difficulties that the supply corps and groundcrew may have faced in obtaining another! Pics from here. Posted in accordance with UK Copyright Law for the purpose of research/discussion. SD

And perhaps the ugliest conversion of a previously beautiful airframe ever... Although advocates of the Mosquito might point to that dreadful target tug version SD

Piotr Forkasiewicz and Mark Postlethwaite suggest the Upkeep bombs were delivered in red primer. The bomb recovered by the Germans from Barlow's Lancaster was certainly finished in red primer. It also carried markings in white applied to the circular ends of the bomb - RA2/ 1832 and X17 on the non-fused end, plus just X17 on the end with the fuses. These were apparently applied by the Armament Officer in 617 Sq., F/O Henry 'Doc' Watson as a means of indicating live vs inert Upkeeps. Other bombs may also have been marked similarly, but details are not known The authors agree with other posters above that these bombs shoul.d have been green, but cite evidence from 617 Sq. ex-groundcrew who recall them being in red primer. There were three versions of upkeep after the original variant with the spherical wood casing - the version recovered was one of the third and final variants, with a completely smooth face (riveting having been removed from the surface contacting the water first). The authors also state that some crews had their bombs painted black to match the aircraft undersurfaces, although it is not known which crews did this. All from here: @Mark Postlethwaite is a member here, so may wish to add more? HTH SD

I often find it easier to search threads here by Googling the subject and adding Britmodeller as a search descriptor. Sounds counter-intuitive I know but it might just work. SD

Off precise topic here, but the loss rate for these aircraft is awful! It seems only two of these aircraft (DD798 and DD799) survived? Sobering stuff SD

You really need to spend time reviewing the Wingleader Photo Archive 5 on early Lancasters. W4783 was one of the fifth production batch, manufactured between September 1942 and May 1943. The Wingleader volume has a contemporary photo of W4783. This confirms that fuselage windows were fitted and that the trailing aerial was moved to the port wing leading edge. Also early needle props and faired windscreen de icing pipes. Of course this aircraft still exists at the AWM so airframe details should be relatively easy to confirm. HTH SD

In addition any modifications initiated didn't necessarily occur neatly at a given serial number. The Wingleader books have a very thought-provoking picture of the late Lancaster production line showing forward fuselages with their cabin transparencies. These show the introduction of the taller, very late war astrodome. The thought-provoking bit is that of the fuselages visible in the shot about a third have the later tall astrodome. BUT these fuselages are randomly sprinkled along the production line, with other airframes fitted with the older astrodomes, between them. Assuming they would have received (or already had received) their serial numbers sequentially, then that would mean that this particular change can't be tied down to a single airframe, but only to the start and end of this production batch. SD

I wonder if the caption is there purely to differentiate for the reader between the long- and short- fuselaged variants of the 210? The preceding section of pictures in the book is captioned as 'Short Fuselaged 210s'. And there were quite a few in service operationally. HTH SD

Here is a more detailed review of the differences between the Me 210 and 410 according to Petrick and Stocker Engines: Early examples at least (if not all) Me 210s were fitted with DB 601F engines - the 410 with DB 603s. The external panel on the engine nacelle might be the way to differentiate between this differing engine fit, with DB 601 fitted aircraft having this, but the later aircraft omitting it. Ed, your subject seems to have been upgraded from the early to the later engines. Wings: Petrick and Stocker state that leading edge slats were added to the 210 wings. The Squadron Signal book goes further, and describes how the taper of the outboard wing panels was reduced, with the 5 degree sweep designed into the 210 being eliminated on the aircraft fitted with slats. Petrick doesn't seem to mention this change. The In Action book also states that ailerons and radiator flaps were redesigned, but doesn't elaborate with pics or drawings. Tailplane: Petrick et al describe the change to internally balanced elevators for the 410. Both references agree on the extension to the fuselage - this is visible in contemporary photos. So the modelling issues seem to centre on the fuselage length, adding slats to the wings and deleting the viewing panel for the engine instruments for the 410. If your aircraft already has the longer fuselage, then the remaining changes seem minor (at least to me). One final point - I can't see the addition of the leading edge slats to the post-crash version of 2N+DD - can anyone? SD

OK Ed, here we go... This aircraft actually features on two pages of the book, with before- and after-crash pics. Before - note the large 2N Geschwader code, no mortars and no white tail. Also the telescopic gunsight projecting through the windscreen. and after repair - note the white tailplane now (with a very ragged paint dividing line) and very pale mortar tubes. Also the caption describing the changes to the engine nacelles. Source is Messerschmitt 210 / Messerschmitt 410 An illustrated Production History. I have intentionally allowed the pictures to be distorted to discourage further reproduction. Uploaded for the purpose of discussion in accordance with UK Copyright Law. You will notice the caption at top of the first picture describing this as a 'Long Fuselage 210'. It would seem that work to fit a fuselage extension was worthwhile in terms of time and money to allow these aircraft to be used operationally and fly somewhat more safely. My personal suspicion (with no evidence whatsoever!) is that wing refitting and adjustment was never undertaken as that would mean essentially rebuilding the entire airframe. I'll see if the book offers any more insight. SD Footnote added later: Lots of mottling on the fuselage it seems?

Look up at Mark Proulx’s post above about Jerry Crandall and his interview with one of the German paint specialists. Adhesion of paint to the underlying surface was a problem with some paint being used at the time . Without primer earlier paint flaked or peeled away from the aircraft. In this situation primer paint was essential. SD

The North African campaign ended in May 1943, with the surrender of Axis forces after the loss of Tunisia. The caption for the Erla picture (could be wrong I'm happy to concede, although a check with the batches of Wk Nrs would validate the date) suggests the photo was taken some months later. Always good to consider all possibilities though SD

I agree with you that the colour could certainly be blue-grey. I think you have a clever idea by proposing that weight saving might be the reason for Erla continuing to use a primer. There must have been a justification for primer still being applied at this time. SD

This original copyright for this picture belongs to Signal , the wartime German magazine. As has been demonstrated already, it's been reproduced more than a few times, and the colours have shifted over the years, so perhaps its now not easy to determine what this colour was. That is perhaps a side issue to the original question however. The picture clearly shows, beyond doubt, that a painted undercoat was applied to these airframes beneath the top surface camouflage colours. Here's another from the same factory Source is Prien and Rodeike - picture uploaded for the purpose of study/discussion. Why this was done if single application Ikarol resin based paints were patented (and presumably available?) before this date is another question. However this photo evidence clearly shows that a primer coat was applied to Bf 109Gs by Erla at least until 1943. We can start another thread perhaps to debate the colour of this undercoat? SD

I think you may have answered most of what you were asking Ed. I recall the previous thread about this aircraft. Regarding the WGr.21 tubes - quite possibly these were painted the underside 76, although I would imagine that heat and firing propellant stains took their toll. Have a look at the images here and see what you think https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/werfer-granate-21.html HTH SD