Jump to content

Werdna

Gold Member
  • Posts

    852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Werdna

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Cardigan
  • Interests
    1/48 WW2 axis + track cycling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,779 profile views

Werdna's Achievements

Obsessed Member

Obsessed Member (4/9)

2.4k

Reputation

  1. It's worth mentioning that none of this came to light 'just a few days ago' - Ullman's research goes back to 2013 (possibly further) - check the date on this link below: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/rlm83darkbluemu_1.htm
  2. There's various discussions about 74 having a green tint 'in certain lights' or 'when newer' - and some paint companies do seem to have really focused on that aspect, to the point where some mid-war Luftwaffe models in 74/75 are turned out in what seems more like RAF day fighter scheme. I personally prefer just a plain dark grey for 74 (Mig Ammo's RLM74 is my current favourite), but that's just my personal opinion..
  3. It was always green - right up to the point where new and compelling evidence emerged of it actually being blue....
  4. Thanks It's Vallejo RLM 25 - not quite as dark as I was hoping, although it's possible I might not have given it enough coats..
  5. Thanks Jamie No filler on this anywhere, as I recall. It goes together pretty well. The only 'downside' to the Italeri kit is the lack of internal detail through the wheel wells - so no engine/supercharger or armament visible. Some of the Dragon/Trimaster kits come with a full engine.
  6. If a pic of Green 8 ever does emerge, it had better show the plane after a forced landing on a golf course..
  7. Hi all This is the Italeri (Dragon/Trimaster) 1/48 Ta152H, finished as 'Green 8' of Geschwaderstab JG 301, one of the aircraft identified in Axel Urbanke's recent JG301 research. No pics of Green 8 are known to exist, but it's depicted here without the familiar JG 301 red/yellow tail band, as it seems that some of these were painted over before the end of the war. If a pic ever emerges of it wearing the tail band, I'll paint it back on Markings applied using Montex masks, with the octane triangles from the kit decals. Anyway, hope you like the pics
  8. To me, that is just over-exposure or some other kind of photographic anomaly. Otherwise, we'd have to accept that the lower rear portion of the tail - not to mention the ground in front of it - would all appear to be the same colour. Which is unlikely....probably...
  9. I must say, I do struggle with the logic of using colours like 76 and/or 77 as upper surface camo colours, at a time when the RLM's main objective was supposed to have been ground concealment. Having said that - where's that photo of dark/light coloured Fw190 wings on a railway car..?
  10. If the records are correct, then although they were from different production blocks, 500408 would have come from the same production line (ie Mimetall, Erfurt) as 500570 - which is another well-known and photographed (and much modelled) D-9. There's also a lot of discussion of 500570's colours in the Japo books, as well as widely online - so if all else fails, you could do worse than take paint guidance from those sources.
  11. I would tend to disregard 'numbers' in favour of 'colours'. The '83' designation is ambiguous and now widely thought to have been a blue, and not a green at all. A combination of either dark green/light green or dark green/mid grey is what I would go with, depending on the specific aircraft.
  12. Hi all I came across this site the other day - thought members might find it interesting (not sure it's been posted here before). A fascinating and fairly in-depth analysis of the RAF's captured Ta152 and an attempt to establish its precise colours (before the RAF painted over at least some of it). A lot of the information is probably applicable to most other late-war Luftwaffe colour schemes, not just the Ta. https://verde9.com/en/painting-of-green-9-ta-152-h-1-w-nr-150168/
  13. Agree completely, I've just finished Revell's 1/48 Ho229, which is a rebox of the old Dragon offering. For a relatively 'new' kit (from Revell's perspective), it was absolutely terrible - the fit of the parts was laughable (not in a good way), while the vague instructions were at best misleading and at times just plain wrong.
  14. Agreed - point accepted. I was just challenging the notion that a company would deliberately withhold a product from the market, when demand was still in evidence. As ever, batch production (assuming that's what Airfix does) is always going to be a bit hit 'n miss...
  15. I'd be surprised if that was the case. I suspect it has more to do with batch production and scheduling of moulding machine time. Obviously if there is demand for a kit, then it makes sense to meet that demand by continuing to sell it, rather than withdrawing it and risking the buying public looking elsewhere in the meantime.
×
×
  • Create New...