SafetyDad
-
Posts
1,205 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by SafetyDad
-
-
@Mark Proulx has reminded me about the source of my original statement about late war paints not needing primer. Crandall's books of course. I had forgotten the source. Thanks Mark!
SD
-
This gets more complicated the more I look. It's certainly not as simple as 'primer wasn't used with Ikarol paints'.
I too have consulted Merrick and Kiroff, and they seem to set out the following timescale.
Until 1943 aircraft were primed in RLM 02 all over
this then shifted towards a speedier and more efficient system, where RLM 76 was used as an initial coat for the airframe, with the upper colours applied over this
Finally, bare metal undersides, and indeed primerless uppersurfaces are experimented with, and appear in small batches.
Examination of preserved airframes provides us with further evidence - in this case from the Australian BF 109G, where RLM 02 is the first colour applied to the bare metal on the port wing uppersurfaces. These wings were recycled from earlier aircraft, so this makes sense on this relatively late-war Bf 109G
All from Merrick and Kirchoff Vol 1
and posted for the purpose of discussion.
The authors also describes in detail the differing approaches taken by differing manufacturers and subcontractors.
So we seem to have a gradual move from fully primed at the start of the War, to partially primed from early 1943, and then finally inconsistency and confusion at war's end. Some aircraft, such as the He 219 and late war jets, appear to have been unprimed. At least that's what the evidence that I can find (including reputable analysis of preserved airframes) appears to show.
SD
-
4
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:
German paint of the period did not require a primer. If you want more, German since Hitler was in severe shortage of several key commodities, and were always looking for alternatives or ways of doing without. I would recommend at least one good book on the subject, but as the author wasn't there ...
As far as I am aware late war colours only (80 onwards) were formulated to be able to be applied without primer. Primer was used with earlier colours, and even, on occasion, with the later colours. The NASM Me 262 has an unidentified light grey along the lower sides of the fuselage, between the 76 undersurfaces and the green uppers, that is believed to be a primer. Photos posted earlier in this thread show primer in use at the factory for 109s. Photos from the Erla repair facility show Bf 109s painted in an overall light colour before final finishing. Studying the photographic evidence, plus examination of recovered pieces, supports the use of primer.
Paint application probably varied between factory facilities and subcontractors. Bf 109 tails for example were delivered ready painted. The most convincing evidence of unprimed aircraft are the late war jets, such as the Me 262 and He 162, some of which were without any paint. Remember the manufacturing facilities for 262s could be outside in a forest, or underground. Later Me 262s were delivered without primer, and the finishing paste used for joint sealing can be seen clearly through the paint in contemporary photographs. I'm not aware of many (if indeed any) photos of late war Bf 109s where painting without primer allows underlying filler paste to be made out.
SD
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, tempestfan said:
Not so sure about this - if you look at the absolutely crazy prices being asked for the first 20 or so volumes, I'd say the market has been there for some time. The Ju 87 book was announced for reprint since 2020 or so (I regularly looked as this is particularly expensive), now their site indicates it as "OOP", but I have never seen the reprint listed anywhere.
All I can say is that the Ho 229 volume has been reprinted twice and the book on the He 162 also has been reprinted. I fully agree that reprinting is a bit of a lottery if you’re waiting for it. I missed the volume on Helicopters of the Third Reich so I share your pain. SD
-
4 minutes ago, bombernut said:
At the library by the looks of - just a bit expensive!
Unfortunately these volumes from Classic/Crecy skyrocket in cost when the print run is complete, however Crecy do reprint if they feel the market is there,
In the meantime please PM me if I can help with any information for you
SD
-
1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:
There's no need to be concerned about turrets and other warlike trappings. These aircraft are trainers and transports - A series Condors wouldn't have such. The more powerful engines of the C were required.
You're correct here Graham - I had completely overlooked the fact that these were A series aircraft when I replied.
However, I do have some reservations whether they remained unencumbered by armament. Goss describes operational bombing and reconnaissance missions being flown by the S3 and other unit aircraft at this early stage. You'll see the details described of the additions to the V4 for the photo recce missions, but of course that's another airframe. But, would the unit fly other aircraft on the same or similar mission profile unarmed?
and here long distance bombing
Again, pure speculation on my part, but was this 17 hour mission flown unarmed? The aircraft used in this raid are not identified, but, given that the raid took place only four weeks after the DLH aircraft were acquired by the unit, it's likely at least some of them took part.
Another issue is the range of the mission flown. Goss describes how Peterson took four Fw 200s destined for delivery to Japan from the Fw production line. These aircraft may already have been modified with extra tanks simply to allow for a delivery flight of nearly 9000Km.
So, in short, yes they were transports and therefore unarmed. But did they stay unarmed, given the use to which they were subsequently put?
SD
-
Hi Matt
I'm not sure that F8+HH and D-ARHW are the same aircraft.
Chris Goss's book on the Fw 200 Condor describes the start of the Norwegian operation here, and identifies F8+HH as the Fw 200 S3.
However, on the following page he identifies D-ARHW as the S5, serving alongside the S3
From here, with the usual proviso in my posts about intentional distortion of images to discourage further replication, and posting purely for research and discussion purposes, in accordance with UK Copyright Law.
I would suggest that a somewhat bigger challenge for you will be to determine the correct configuration for either of these aircraft at that time. Goss doesn't appear to have pictures of either airframe at that time, although he has photos of others from this initial allocation of aircraft to the unit. The Condor has multiple configurations of turrets, gondolas and lumps and bumps according to the variants produced. These early variants seem to be very lightly armed.
I'm not familiar with the Revell kit - how is it configured?
SD
-
Look at how cramped and confined the gunner's station is!
Imagine spending hours sitting there...
SD
-
1
-
-
So, having looked in War Prizes, I found this:
It's captioned as 1H+GT, and the 0327 on the fin would seem to confirm that. Here's the AJ pic as comparison
Infuriatingly the two photographers, while taking pictures of the same side of the aircraft, seem to have conspired to carefully avoid overlapping almost no parts of the painted airframe! However the Butler picture does confirm that the Wellenmuster was significantly heavier on this side of the aircraft. I can't see the cannon in the turret in the Butler pic (it's a tiny photo in the book, and I've enlarged it as much as practicable). No evidence of any overwing aerial fit either.
I've just noticed that the Wellenmuster on the port side of the fuselage doesn't match in the two pictures. Compare the three 'flat topped balloons' directly below the canopy sill in the AJ picture with the two 'sausages' somewhat lower down from the canopy sill in the Butler photo. I think that's two different aircraft.
So, recalling the RAF roundels, that seems to leave two candidates
or
HTH
SD
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Yank in the RAF said:
Thanks for all of those who have sommented and shared in this thread. Always great to have a post answered adequately.
The pictures of 1H+GT from flickr are very helpful! The reveal a lot of other details about the plane- the weight of the RLM 76 squiggles; the starboard engine features no squiggles (a replacement cowling?); and no spirals on the spinners. Also, I agree with SafetyDad that the plane may never have had the FuG 217 wing radar after all. However, it appears that in one picture, it has FuG 200 in the nose in one picture, but not in the other. The top turret gun is also missing from one of the pictures as well. Quite the mystery.
I noticed the engine difference. I can speculate that the radar was removed by the British - I think that picture may have been taken at Farnborough. Armament removal could also be argued as desirable on weight grounds if the aircraft was to be ferried from Norway to the UK. But why then leave the defensive MG131 at the rear of the canopy? On the other hand, the Wellenmuster camouflage is much denser in the second picture, but this is taken from the other side of the airframe. So, could be different painters applying the camo, or AJ Press are mistaken with their caption, and this is not 1H+GT?
I'll check Phil Butler's book for other captured Ju 188s as both carry underwing British roundels.
SD
-
15 hours ago, Graham Boak said:
The air isn't that thicker. I suspect that a Ju.88 probably can turn just about as well as a Beaufighter anyway, but it is an interesting little snippet linked to the thread.
A captured Ju 88G-1 -4R+UR was being test flown from Farnborough during its evaluation by, I believe, Bee Beaumont (or Roly Falk - I can't recall precisely at the moment) when it was approached by a Mosquito piloted by Bob Braham. A mock combat was perhaps inevitable. I think we can assume that both pilots were well matched. Apparently the result was that the Ju 88 could turn inside the Mosquito. It was only Braham's greater familiarity with the limits of the Mosquito's flying envelope, combined with the understandable reluctance of the JU 88 pilot to loose a valuable airframe, that prevented the Junkers gaining a firing position on the tail of the Mosquito.
Surprised me too. I've never thought of the Ju 88 as being that nimble. I think this tale is contained within the last Classic book on the Ju 88.
SD
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, dov said:
ALT by FuG 101 only. So, in both directions. For what need of FuG 217? This would interfere the FuG 101!
Just a logic operation briefing shows this!
@SafetyDad, you may be right with your conclusion!
Happy modelling
Strange that you should mention this - I was thinking exactly the same this morning, namely that the radio altimeter would be a more useful piece of kit than FuG 217. In this case I was reading a Luftwaffe Im Focus describing the missions of 1.(F)/120 against Scapa Flow. These missions were flown at less than 50 M to avoid radar detection. You'd have to have confidence in your altimeter to accomplish this!
SD
-
1
-
1
-
-
As a footnote to this thread I've just realised that the reference I used for the pictures of 1H+GT is one of the two primary references for the Third Group sheet you have. Now I normally hold these sheets in high regard, having a few myself, but I have my doubts in this case about FuG 217 being fitted to your airframe. Notice that there is no sign of any overwing (or underwing) masts or dipoles of any sort in the two pictures I uploaded of 1H+GT. I also possess the other part of this 2 part publication cited by the decal makers, and there's no photos there either. So the primary references cited do not support this equipment being fitted to this specific aircraft.
So I've trawled through my references for pictures of KG26 Ju 88s and 188s. The best source for photos I have is the Classic Publications volume on the Ju 88 - Junkers Ju 88 - Volume Two - The Bomber at War Day and Night - Operational and Service History William A. Medcalf - Luftwaffe Classics Nr. 24. This has a considerable number of big, clear shots of KG26 aircraft at war's end, taken in both Norway (Gardermoen) and Germany (Lubeck). I can't see any Ju 188s fitted with FuG 217. And some pictures show a lot of aircraft. I can only see three Ju 88s fitted with the overwing aerial fit - and its exactly as described by @G.R.Morrison above, namely a sloping dipole mounted near each wing tip and pointing forwards and outwards with the forward end of the aerial mounted higher than the rear. As illustrated in the handbook posted by @dov. Sadly in none of the pictures of these Ju 88 aircraft fitted with the desired equipment can unit codes be seen. It is worth noting that these few aircraft also carry additional FuG 200 dipole arrays outboard of each engine at mid span as well as in the more conventional mounting spot on the aircraft nose.
I don't dispute the premise that some of the unit's Ju 188s carried FuG 217 - GRM has already given examples - only that 1H+GT appears not to be so equipped.
As always, open to change my mind when that crucial definitive photograph is uploaded in the next few minutes!
SD
-
3
-
-
Righto. I think I'm getting somewhere.
Martin Streetly in Confound and Destroy has a very useful set of appendices describing the radar and ECM fits of both sides during WW2. On PP 179 to 180 he describes three distinct versions of FuG 217. One was for single seaters, such as the Fw 190, but the other two versions could be used by multi-engined aircraft. These were
FuG 217 Neptun R2, a tail warning set (which I think is the one on the drawings above)
FuG 217 Neptun VR, a combined AI and tail warning set for multi engined aircraft. 'This set could use rod or dipole and support aerial arrays'. This sounds like the array fitted to 1H+GT. Unfortunately there's no pictures of any aerial fittings in this section, but P6 of @dov's link shows a possible candidate that also is not so far from @G.R.Morrison's description.
SD
-
This might help. Pics of 1H+GT
both from here on P75.
The FuG 217 fit is very hard to see and more complex than I thought. The link posted by @dov to the handbook for FuG 217, and the information provided by @G.R.Morrison are both slightly different in terms of the aerial fit. This is compounded by the poor quality of many photos, where the aerials are not easy to make out. I'm struggling to see them on the photos here of 1H+GT. FuG 217 was not fitted to all aircraft in a given unit just to confuse us further, although the evidence seems to point to it being carried by your chosen subject,
Look here - four vertical rods under the wing, in this case next to the letter 'N'.
This drawing shows it better - three rods in front, with a fourth somewhat behind.
And here its fitted to a Ju 388
Also worth mentioning that 1H+GH doesn't seem to have the regulation mud guard on the tail wheel.
HTH
SD
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Flintstone said:
The later service issue suits are definitely not white, but I seem to remember a description suggesting they were a light sack cloth colour.
Agreed. From memory the suits were asbestos based, so a light grey might be the starting point. @Rob de Bie is your man here.
SD
-
Here you go - my Flickr account wasn't playing ball earlier
I had tentatively decided that this was the same aircraft, based on the trees in the background, plus the position of the props (yes, I know, a bit dubious). Also the bit of branch placed on the starboard wing root appears in both shots. This picture also appears in the Petrick book, where he gives the Wk Nr as the same. The colours have shifted over 80 years, but it seems to be 74/75/76 camo.
SD
-
3
-
-
JV44 allegedly used single colour green uppersurfaces on their aircraft. I would add my scepticism to that already expressed by others about that profile - it's wrong in so many ways.
SD
-
1
-
-
Petrick describes that the Me 410 with the 50mm cannon was disliked because of initial problems with the gun and ammunition feed, which was prone to jamming. When these problems were solved, and the gun used in combat, it became apparent that aiming without tracer rounds as guidance was almost impossible. No 50mm tracer rounds were manufactured, and Milch resisted any drive to do so. So, the large and unwieldy 410 was forced to engage bombers close-in the ensure a hit rather than standing off out of range as originally intended. That meant engaging with P-51s and P-47s, with predictable results for the 410.
Willy Herget had similar aiming problems when attempting to engage bombers with the prototype Me 262 with 50mm cannon. The British retained Browning 303s in the nose of their Tse Tse Mosquitos as 'aimers', although the trajectory and drop of the differing munitions would have meant that these aimers were not that accurate.
SD
-
5
-
-
Daniel beat me to it! The aircraft is also illustrated in colour, both in the Petrick and Stocker book, and on the front cover of Volume 3 of the Kookaburra series on Luftwaffe Colours from the 70s.
SD
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, PatG said:
I think, perhaps incorrectly, that the RAF Museum 'Emil' has subsequently had a correct repro hood fitted to make it more accurate.
The aircraft itself was a hotch potch of various airframes and components and the original hood was removed for flight testing as the pilot concerned was rather tall by all accounts.
Would be interested to know if this is the case as I stopped buying Flypast some time ago!
Pat.
Look further up on this post - @@Troy Smith posted pics and info about the RAF Emil.
22 hours ago, dov said:The rear part of the canopy is also in many ways full of myths!
Happy modelling
An afterthought prompted by @dov 's comments - he's quite right. Take a good look at the rear canopy sections on the page I posted. They too differ markedly across different marks of the 109.
HTH
SD
-
Well this is a little embarrassing. After all this chat, I find I had the answer in front of me all the time!
a section from this guide to Bf 109 canopies
from here
an oldie but a goodie.
I know the section on the later 'Galland' hood (sic) is now known to be not accurate (and more complex), but the clarity of the pictures seemed worth adding to this thread.
HTH
SD
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, TheKinksFan said:
Edit. Their 1/72 Bf 109F-2 and F-4 Profipacks have right masks and instructions.
I'm totally speechless that they can make so stupid mistakes, and repeatedly. And that nobody there spots it. Or maybe they do, but don't do anything about it if the masks are already made and the instructions printed. But not going public and saying that they made a mistake, and correcting it, I don't respect a company like that. In this instance it is a small issue, and it's easy to cover the canopies with a piece of tape, but somehow it is typical. Just being silent.
A gentle reply, meant to be supportive.
I understand your frustration, but, simply put, many manufacturers don't have access to the depth of specialist knowledge that we modellers have here. And many people building their products won't notice inaccuracies of this type. To be totally honest with you, my speciality interest is the Luftwaffe, and I learnt details from Troy's pictures above that I was unaware of.
Some manufacturers do seem to intentionally churn out inaccurate (sometimes grossly inaccurate) kits. Not naming names. But I think many try hard to get it right, using LIDAR and making extensive surveys of museum examples. Think Airfix and Zoukei Mura. Or Wingnut Wings. But preserved airframes are often a mosaic from multiple examples (with the problems such as that of the Hendon BF109 highlighted by Troy). Even Tamiya, usually spot-on for details, were caught by this with their Gloster Meteor some years back when they used a preserved airframe as their base. Perhaps in this case Eduard simply had two different staff members drafting their instructions? Or forgot to update them? To be fair, they came clean about their BF 109G some years back that was mis-sized and retooled it. It's not always this easy - there are cases where BM'ers have collaborated with kit makers or offered their expertise during kit development, and their input has been ignored. From the manufacturers' perspective, if their product sells, then they're happy (even if we aren't!).
In summary, I suppose I'm saying that it is as you say, in this case, a small issue. It's probably worth highlighting that we modellers have never had such choice and quality in terms of the kits at our disposal to store or build.
SD
And there's always BM to help with details or to canvas the views of others.
SD
-
3
-
-
Some very clear pics there Troy. Very helpful.
SD
-
1
-
Messerschmitt 210 to Me 410 Conversion in 1:1 Scale.
in Aircraft WWII
Posted
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