SafetyDad

Your chosen machine is well photographed, with excellent, clear images available from a variety of sources. Unfortunately, these images are accompanied by a whole load of captions - some very helpful and others just plain wrong! A good look on Marc-André Haldimann's Flickr site is time well spent - it's exceptionally well organised and his captions are really detailed and informative. There is so much scope for marking choices here. Scroll down his contents page for his album for JGr.300 This picture is his header for the album Notice the shorter style Gruppe bar as others such as @FalkeEins have highlighted. Notice also that the bar tends to be painted higher up in the upper half of the fuselage bands (here it is aligned just above the upper arms of the fuselage cross rather than centred between the two arms). Compare the bar size and location with your aircraft where the bar is a little lower, but still above the centre of the two horizontal arms of the Balkenkreuz. Normally, the bar was applied like this in other units. Notice its lower and the bar is longer compared to your choice. HTH SD

So here you are. Nicely moulded parts to my eye with a little resin flash. Remember the photos are much larger than life size The engine intake scoop is cleverly moulded hollowed out, and the prop blades are very thin indeed. The biggest drawback perhaps is the need to create the bulged engine bearers for the Jumo 213F from putty. But it would a full fuselage half to create these convincingly in resin. Here are the instructions And, for completeness, here is the parts breakdown for their D-11 kit which I also have. For an extra 2 Euros you get the blanking plates, barrels and ammo bulges for the wing cannon. Seems very reasonably priced to me for what you receive in the box HTH SD

I have one. I'll take some pics. SD

Thanks Floyd - I didn't know that. Makes perfect sense. SD

I think I made that clear. Hence my placing the term 'RLM 84' within parentheses in my post - this indicates the term is not universally accepted. However, whether we agree or not, the term has found widespread adoption for convenience. I also specifically referred to Graugrun in my post with the colour chips from the Monogram Painting Guide. SD

My Flickr account was playing up earlier, so I couldn't include these in my post above. Fw 190F colours and captions - source Monogram Painting Guide And a chip for Grunblau from the same source HTH SD

The upper wings for <O+- in the post from @Troy Smithare 75 Grey with Dark Green on the right wing, and apparently Dark Green plus 81 Braunviolett on the port wing! SD

We seem to have moved away from the 109 in the picture, and drifted into an exploration of the green-blue late war undersurface colour. This has generated considerable debate over the years, and not a little spontaneous combustion and closure of threads across the modelling universe... This colour has been documented on Nightfighters - the NASM He 219 was found to have 'RLM 84' Wellenmuster applied in the wingroots when the wings were removed for restoration. No ifs and buts, the NASM themselves confirm this and they have restored their airframe with 75 uppersurfaces overlaid with '84' squiggles. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/heinkel-night-fighter-he-219-wing-painting-complete In fairness, I feel this is another example of a preserved airframe throwing us a complete curveball in colour terms. The Modelling World of Luftwaffe Colours in the 21st Century follows strict RLM rules slavishly, with no dissent allowed. However the few preserved aircraft we have throw up exceptions and variations to these rules more than they should statistically in my view. For example the NASM has their Fw 190F with a whole slew of strange non-standard original colours, their Ar 234 uses a previously unknown light brown in the wheelwells, and the Australian Bf 109G is all over the place with wings in 66/77! Surely we would expect preserved machines to largely, if not entirely, follow the 'rules'? I suspect that reliance upon largely monochrome images is the issue here - we interpret these according to rigidly held views. Indeed, we come close to making the evidence fit the theory. To pick up Paul's point above - who would be so bold as to declare a 1940 Ju 88 to be finished in 70/71/84? Or an He 219 to be finished in 75/84/66? SD

Just a post-script. The Trumpeter kit is generally well thought of, but it has criss-cross detailing on the inside of the undercarriage doors that is entirely spurious. This should be removed. HTH SD

I've had a quick skim through Axel Urbanke's history of IV./JG26 using the Fw 190D-9 and haven't found any photos documenting Brown 10. This strikes me as unusual since there is artwork for this airframe, plus it's a chosen scheme for your masks? I'll keep looking... The book does contain pictures of Brown 7, 9, 18 and 31 if Brown Staffel numbers are your thing. Other aircraft from the unit are better supported by photographic evidence, such as Black 1 above as provided by @Troy Smith. Flown by Fw Muller-Berneck, this aircraft (Wk Nr 210972), arrived in Lister in Norway as part of a small flight of 190D-9s intending to offer last-ditch resistance there alongside elements of JG5. There seems to have been some compulsion from senior offices, such as Karl Borris and Franz Gotz the Kommodore of JG26 to compel pilots to undertake this flight. Muller-Berneck was apparently less than impressed with this idea of resistance at this stage of the war, so overnight after their arrival on May 5th 1945 he and a colleague removed equipment, such as the radio, from his aircraft to lighten it, and siphoned and 'borrowed' fuel from other aircraft to ensure his tanks were full. He then took off early on the morning of May 6th, aiming to fly from Norway to Bavaria where he had family. After a 700km flight he made it safely home! Information from here - notice the late-war 'cigar' droptank in the pic. Not essential for your build, as these tanks were disposable/reusable and other aircraft are pictured with earlier types of under-fuselage tank. Don't hesitate to ask if you need or want more information - us Northern lads need to stick together! SD

As a postscript, the differences can't be that great as Airfix offered both variants from their original 1/24 sprues as I recall. SD

And this https://www.ipmsstockholm.se/home/modellers-guide-to-focke-wulf-fw-190-variants-part-i/ for the A-5 https://www.ipmsstockholm.se/home/modellers-guide-to-focke-wulf-fw-190-variants-part-ii/ will let you know about the G-3 HTH SD

That's easy. Lots of them! SD

For me the definitive evidence lies with the exposed engine and bearers. The visible L-shaped coolant tank really rules out anything else other than a Dora of some description. The Ta 152s had their coolant tank behind the radiator, and not therefore not readily visible. The drawings posted earlier in the thread by @MDriskill confirm this. I hadn't really appreciated before I started this analysis that the later Jumo 213s used different shaped bearers - much like Ta 152H bearers. 'Early' bearers (D-9) are more symmetrical in their width fore and aft of the massive central bolt support. (Crandall: FW 190D Dora Volume 2) The later Jumos have this arrangement with a slimmer, more curved section near to the firewall to accommodate the larger supercharger intake, and a more massive 'beefed up' forward section of the bearer.. I've helpfully cut off the caption from Crandall(!), but he describes as a later Power Egg for a Jumo 213F, with late-style bearers. And our subject - note the L shaped coolant tank as well. Finally, the pilot of CS+IA was kind enough to park his plane with the prop at an almost identical angle to that of the wreck, helping with our comparison of prop type HTH SD

It's very difficult to be certain, as @tempestfan describes above. I'm interested to hear any other views? Logic says the tails should be the same, plus the C wider tail had a distinctive aerial attachment which is absent in the pictures of the wrecked aircraft. It might simply be a perspective/photo reproduction issue? SD

So I did! Sorry, the post took a lot of time to put together and I thought I had checked everything! Thanks for your input - appreciated SD Just noticed another small detail in the pictures - the lack of spinner spiral would suggest a non-operational aircraft. Note that CS+IA also has no spiral.

I'm going to breathe some life into this older thread from @Werdna. Oh no! I hear you all say... @Mattlow and I have been kicking around some ideas via PM about the identity of this mystery airframe with the Ta 152 type tail. I've reproduced the pictures below to make this post easier to read Matt has done sterling work poring over the details of the airframes here (and probably given himself a migraine or two whilst doing so). I started off looking for the location of the picture to see if that helped, but there are a number of possibilities that don't seem to add anything to the debate. Seemed like a blind alley. First, a summary of the debate about the airframe - thanks to Matt for his thoughts. We seem to have a 'Short wing' long nose airframe with broad Ta 152 style tail Seems to have wing root armament Blurry pictures, but the engine is a Jumo 213 from the air intake position, and a later model of the 213 from the design of the engine bearers Not a Jumo in a Ta 152, because these seem to have dark painted (green from the preserved specimen from a Ta 152H) engine bearers Plus the coolant tank is there, where that is behind the oil cooler in the Ta 152 design Much debate originally over the prop - a VS9 was favoured by some contributors such as @MDriskill So might this be a Ta 152C? But that aircraft had a DB 603, with the air intake on the other side Apparently a conundrum, as the Fw 190D had a VS111 prop So it seems we're stuck But only the 190D-9 had this prop; Crandall is quite explicit that the D-11, D-12 and D-13 had the VS9. Could the answer be that this is a D-11, D-12 or D-13 with a large tail? Then I looked again at that Hakenkreuz with its white outline, and this post in the thread above. Like many contributors to the original thread, I had been focused on the airframe details rather than the markings. The markings are much more unusual than I had appreciated when I first saw the pictures. The markings are restricted to the National Insignia, so, on the face of it, it seems that they don't tell us much. BUT they are anything but usual - they don't conform at all to the norm for Fw 190D production. See here where JaPo set out the details of the National Markings used on the Fw 190D (Source is JaPo Fw 190D Camouflage and Markings Part 2 - Posted solely for the purpose of research and intentionally slightly distorted to discourage further replication) So the norm is either a large black or smaller white outlined fuselage cross, with some exceptions as noted for black and white crosses perhaps applied at unit level. Our aircraft has a larger white fuselage Hakenkreuz. Perhaps 800mm? Doesn't appear on the JaPo chart above The Balkenkreuz is large (600mm?) and white outlined - again not recorded above So I double-checked with Crandall's Dora books as he sets out national markings by production batch and they too don't list any batches of Fw 190D-9s with these peculiar markings But now look at this aircraft (Source as above - again distorted intentionally and posted in accordance with UK Copyright Law) CS+IA was a Fw 190D-13 prototype - built by Focke Wulf I think in their dedicated prototype shop. (Actually Crandall argues that it could have been a D-12 or D-13 aircraft as they only differed in the engine-mounted cannon fitted - if you changed the cannon then the aircraft subtype could also be argued to be changed) It has the same combination of markings - a tip of my hat to @fastterry. Even the mottling is similar. The white outline to the Hakenkreuz seems to be typical of Fw 190D prototype aircraft manufactured by the parent company, and some limited batches of Fw 190A-8s. JaPo suggest that CS+IA's tail was not repainted after conversion from an A-8, but this is speculation. Obviously, for our subject aircraft in the blurry pictures above, a Ta 152 style tail would not have come from an A-8, so the white outline in this case must have applied at the point of construction by the manufacturer. In fairness, while the white outline to the tail marking can be found on other Fw built prototypes, the larger white fuselage cross is very unusual indeed and seems only to have been used on CS+IA above and our subject in the picture. Both CS+IA and the other D-13 prototype on record (see my conclusions below) were recorded by Crandall as being converted from Fw 190A-8s - did these have white fuselage crosses? So, to exclude other possibilities, I felt it necessary to systematically consider all other potential candidates. The known Ta 152 tailed 190D-9s don't have a white outline to their Hakenkreuz, plus it's smaller at 420mm. (JaPo Vol 2 - posted as above) The small number of Fw 190D-11s also had plain black Hakenkreuz applied (Crandall Fw 190D 'Dora' Volume 2) and the production Fw 190D-13s, such as Wk Nr. 836017 'Yellow 10' and 836016 '<<+' don't have this white outline either (although it seems the tail for the latter had been repainted when photographed in 1945. Finally, and quite a long shot, the few completed Ta 152Es found at Erfurt seem to be largely unpainted and lacking National Markings. They also have dark-painted engine bearers and a different cowl so I think can be excluded as a possible candidate. Worth considering, because looking at the backgrounds in the various photos, the blurry pictures above might have been taken at Erfurt. (Source: Crandall Vol 2) So, returning to my hypothesis of this being a Fw 190D-13 prototype, as well as CS+IA Wk Nr 350165, another Fw. 190D-13 prototype is known from records, but not recorded photographically. JaPo in Vol 2 p.87 mention this, and Crandall cites contemporaneous documents that have it as Wk Nr 732054, converted from an Ago built Fw 190A-8. So there you have it - is this the missing D-13 prototype? In which case it's likely that it would have had a flat canopy and the older antennae pulley as its sibling 350165. Or is it perhaps another D-12 or D-13 prototype used to evaluate the bigger tail? By the way, that tail in the photos is peculiar. It might be the poor quality of the pictures, but I could almost accept that the tail pictured is even broader than that of the Ta 152 - it's almost like a Fw 190C tail. Views, constructive comments and alternative ideas welcomed SD

Your copy of Brown’s book seems to be different from mine. My 1987 printing doesn’t describe any powered flight- indeed Brown goes to some lengths to stress how he didn’t undertake one! I know his powered flight was unauthorised, and details of this were only disclosed relatively recently. I wonder if my printing is from the time when this powered flight was officially denied, and the chapter was rewritten for later printings? Like Rob, I met Brown at the Nationals in Donington some years ago. I enjoyed a brief chat but avoided asking anoraky questions! 😉 SD

Good morning Jochen I’m away from my computer so I can only offer a limited reply at this moment. Japo believe that differing batches of Fw 190D-9s (and Bf 109s) have distinctive painting characteristics, such as the height and shape of fuselage upper/lower surface demarcation lines, the size and shape of national markings, and type face used for Wk Nrs. Your first subject is a very well photographed machine and its Wk Nr is confirmed as 211164. JaPo have an extensive write up on it, settling on it belonging to Stab. JG 6 as it was discovered at Prague. Obviously the Wk Nr makes it easier to determine the manufacturer, in this case Focke-Wulf. It also originally had the early ’ flat’ canopy. JaPo makes reference to distinguishing Fw painting features, such as the all- green engine cowling with a straight demarcation line between this and the 76 undersides. The Wk Nr for your second example I think is also known, thanks to some recently discovered photos on Flickr. JaPo list it as a Fiesler built airframe, based on the very distinctive smaller Balkenkreuz. I’ll check my photos later today for any additional details and get back to you. SD EDIT: Sorry Jochen, but I was mistaken - the Wk Nr for <II + is not known - even the recent clearer shots don't show this. You probably know, but others may not, that this aircraft was pictured at Frankfurt in 1946, and that the RVD bands, whilst appearing to be possibly red from their tone are in fact now thought to be yellow, so a Stab./JG.2 machine pictured at Rhein-Main. Click on the link to the poster's Flickr account and to see additional photos of this airframe - notice the request for copies from a well-known author. I'm not linking directly as the pictures are described as 'All Rights Reserved', so I don't want to breach any Copyright as a consequence. The pics are well worth a look. https://www.flickr.com/photos/97603721@N00/14339557911/in/dateposted/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/97603721@N00/14163542857/in/photostream/ SD

Well put Jochen! SD

Coming to @GiampieroSilvestri 's rescue - the use of white as a colour for nightfighters was unearthed by Lynn Ritger on Hyperscale and linked to here. Scroll down to the link offered in this thread in the post by @Jochen Barett SD

Volume 2 of the JaPo coverage of the Fw 190D-9 sets out their analysis of the colours applied to the third Mimetall block of machines, that is Wk Nrs 500551 to 500700. The authors highlight the number of survivors from this block (12 are captured on film), and undertake meticulous description and interpretation from the photographic evidence they have. To be honest, we're once more where we were - many pictures don't show the wing uppersurfaces, and those that do aren't always crisp and clear. Perhaps the best picture in this section is this of 'White 16' (Picture intentionally distorted slightly to discourage further replication, and posted purely for the purpose of research/discussion in accordance with UK Copyright Law). The authors are of the view that the lighter uppersurface colour is RLM 76 - there you go Graham - rather than anything else. Personally, I think the B&W tone of the lighter wing colour doesn't match the tone of the lower fuselage colour, which would be RLM 76, but it's up to the viewer to make their own decision. My personal view is that the wing colour is somewhat darker and slightly less stark than the lower fuselage 76, but we're into subjective territory here. You decide SD EDIT: I should have made it clear above that JaPo only make the claim for the high-contrast uppersurface colour for the third batch of Mimetall 190Ds - the other batches are considered to have Braunviolett, and/or Greens and Grey uppers in various combinations

And translated: From the book "Surface protection processes and paints in the German aviation industry and air force 1935-1945" by Michael Ullmann on page 104. "RLM77: This partially solid, partially removable night vision protection coating (!) was used until 1943. Due to daytime missions becoming increasingly dangerous for bombers, a solid night vision protection coating (!) was introduced around this time. It had the advantages of lower air resistance and It was also more durable than removable paint, reducing maintenance requirements." On page 112. "It's nice to see that the license plates are in color 77." This seems to confirm the use of 77 as a 'solid night vision protection coating' . SD

I don't wish to hijack this thread into a back-and-forth between you and I Graham, and I've stepped away for a couple of hours before posting this, but it's important that other readers here are accurately informed of the issues being debated in this thread, and don't carry away mistaken or inaccurate information about the subject under discussion. It must be a little while since you read his work, because David Brown does make reference to Primary Sources or 'hard evidence' as you term it. Namely the 8 November 1941 edition of Luftwaffen Dienstvorschriften 521/1, where RLM 77 was explicitly listed as a camouflage colour, having previously been identified as for use for codes and markings. Brown goes on to cite its early use - 'it appears as a camouflage colour (my emphasis) on early nightfighters (for example the Do 217 J-1, as mentioned in the document ‘Oberflächenschutzliste für Do 217 J, August 1942’16) a' (Direct quote from Brown's work). Brown goes on the state that 'RLM 77’s ‘official’ use as a markings colour was emphasized again in the RLM Sammelmitteilung 2 of 15August 1944.20' (Citation in Brown from Ullmann Luftwaffe Colours). And if it's primary evidence that's needed for the use of 77 as an upperwing colour, then Brown cites the Bf 109G at Bankstown in Australia, which remains in its original paint after all these years. It's been extensively studied (By Ken Merrick and Brett Green amongst others), and has been established as having the starboard wing originally painted in RLM77, with another grey, RLM66 (!), applied later. Brown offers additional photographic discussion and evidence for the use of 77, but I'll leave it there. I wanted his work to be fairly represented in this thread. SD

White 43 and 44 found at Fassberg in 1945 were night fighters. Note the non-standard canopy window on the port side of the main hood, small bulge above the hood for a rear-view mirror and the exhaust shields HTH SD