Brian J

Thanks, Jack, for including that photo I was referring to as my computer skills are limited. To add to your comment about the original camouflage scheme I'll add another comment made by Dave Wadman. "Three of these pieces of upper surface skin retained a substantial amount of paint which allowed us to continually but gradually 'cut back' the paint in some areas which showed that the greys had been lightly applied over the original 70/71 colours." Was the port wing more lightly over sprayed than the starboard wing leaving a faint shadow of the original cross not found on the starboard wing? I also couldn't help but notice how the upper wing colours extended up onto the fuselage at the wing roots. Is this another indicator that the 'greys' were field applied?

Many thanks to those members who have put up with my hand wringing over a topic that has finally be setttled...at least in my mind. I've been pouring over previous comments and photos provided by JackG and David Wadman. Many thanks to both of them. I re-read the observations made by Dave in an e-mail I shared with members back in 2016. "Subsequent examination of all 'strips' made available to us after various forms of rubbing and polishing to remove dirt, oxidization etc clearly showed that the upper surfaces were finished in two separate shades of grey far removed from 74 and 75. Similarly, the same treatment given to the lower surfaces blue 65 strips clearly showed several different shades of blue!.... I too read that article and have had access in the past to the pieces mentioned but what the author failed to make clear was that the few distinct brown shades mentioned were under the extant colours... What must be remembered is that these various grey and grey/green schemes were adaptions of the basic camo pattern insofar that they were only lightly applied over the existing 70/71 or 02/72 finishes and were generally applied to follow the existing pattern lines." After re-reading these comments this morning I was drawn to look at the colour image Jack provided in his first post. For me, the two shades of grey on the upper fuselage verify what Dave commented on. I feel much more confident about FINALLY getting to that build-up that has been on the shelf of doom for years! That colour image was the deciding factor as well as the b&w photo at the top of page 281 of Jagdwaffe: Battle of Britain, Phase Three, showing the upper wing camouflage pattern. Thanks guys!

Many thanks to the members who responded so far. Upon looking at the images sent along by JackG something caught my attention. When would that colour photo have been taken? It must have been decades after the crash as the original 'blue' paint has been scraped away exposing the original markings under the tiger head and numeral four. How would the 'brown' and 'grey' colour described by Paul Lucas been affected? Mr Lucas included a quote from that original Flying Review article made by an eye witness at the crash site, "The upper surfaces of the wings and tailplane, and the top of the fuselage were dark grey - about the same shade as the old naval 'Home Fleet grey'. On the extreme top of the fuselage, the grey had a near brownish tinge, as this had been sprayed on as an absolutely final finish...the brownish effect was also noticeable on the upper surfaces of the wings, particularly near the leading edges and the fuselage junction." I realize I'm digging up that horse we beat to death several years ago, but I'm having a hard time disregarding that description given almost 80 years ago. In the aforementioned article Mr. Lucas includes studying several other 109 air frames that show signs of various shades of brown and grey. Have any other members read the article in question?

The following inquiry may have been addressed in an earlier post that I missed. If so, hopefully I can be directed to any responses. While thumbing through my Battle of Britain Bf 109 files I came across an article from a September 2004 issue of Model Aircraft Monthly that I had totally forgotten about. According to the following months editorial it, "...caused a bit of a furore in certain sections of our 'community' last month, with our suggestions of Battle of Britain period Messerschmitt Bf 109Es finished in certain non-standard camouflage colours." In this article, the highly respected researcher/author, Paul Lucas gives, what I consider to be a well thought out presentation that several 109Es appear to have been camouflaged in shades of greys and browns. The example that caught my attention was the well known 'white 4' w.nr 11900 of 4./JG 26 flown by Uffz Horst Perez. The caption to the colour four view drawing reads, "The under surface/fuselage sides were also 'pale blue', either Hellblau 65 or Hellgrau 76. The upper surfaces were possibly RLM 66 Schwarzgrau and RLM 61 Dunkelbrun." I won't go into the background of the camouflage of this aircraft as I posted a question on this subject back in December of 2009. Several members responded with enlightening, informative comments. Has this new (at least to me) interpretation been accepted as a viable possibility? If earlier comments are any indication I hope informed members can help clear the muddy waters of these Luftwaffe camouflage schemes.

Boy, I'd love to hear how Nicolson's widow knew about the markings on her husbands aircraft as I believe 249 Squadron was based at Boscombe Down at the time. I'm not positive where Muriel was living at the time but we read on page 40 of Nicolson VC that, "His first concern was to get him to hospital but he insisted on dictating telegrams to his wife and Squadron Commander. To his wife he said: "Shot down. Very slightly hurt. Full particulars later. All my love. Nick." Why would he send her a telegram if she lived near the base? Was that how people communicated in an emergency during the war? Where was she living at the time and how would she know the markings of her husband's aircraft? On another note, in response to the comment made by Graham Boak, I found a comment by Frank Campey that I filed in my Hurricane folder years ago that reads, "Dear Neil, I found a small error in the article on Nicolson's 249 Squadron machine...The letters GN were aft of the roundel on the starboard side. A photograph of GN.A does exist and was published in Scale Aircraft Modelling Volme 4, No. 8, May 1982 It is a very poor photo, but I have seen a better reproduction in another publication some years ago..." I'm not sure what photo he was referring to but perhaps one of our members may have access to that photo or that issue of Scale Aircraft Modelling Mr. Campey mentioned.

Many thanks for your response, Mark. After reading I immediately referred to your reference. I hadn't paid enough attention to the background in that photo. Well done! I commend the efforts of the publishing/editing team that produces this excellent series on the Battle of Britain. A must reference for a serious enthusiast! The artwork, maps and general layout is top notch! I would be grateful if you would express your opinion on this subject, as to the size of the 'red devil emblem' under the port windscreen. What is it based on if there are no proven photos of Nicolson's Hurricane? Is the Robert Taylor painting accurate concerning the starboard view?

My apologies if this inquiry has been addressed. My references contradict each other (as they often do) as to the placement of the squadron codes of this well known aircraft. On page 592 of Battle of Britain Combat Archive, Vol. 5 by Simon W Parry, we read, "Based upon the few existing photos of 249 Squadron Hurricanes in August 1940, the GN code letters were placed aft of the roundel on the starboard side. The Robert Taylor print Battle of Britain VC also shows these markings. Several years ago I purchased the Aviaeology 1/48 Vital Storm pt. 2 decal sheet AOD48007.2m whose instructions indicate the GN code was in front of the roundel on the starboard side. I would enjoy reading opinions on the above question as well as any others concerning the markings of this aircraft. In my above references I failed to include the dust cover image of the "full and authorised biography" 'Nicolson VC' by Peter D Mason, published in 1991. It has the same markings as the Robert Taylor print with squadron code GN aft of the roundel on the starboard side. The entire leading edge of the vertical tail is also red as in the Taylor print. It would be interesting to learn what these artists based their artwork on. Thumbing through my Battle of Britain references it appears that many Spitfire and Hurricane units carried unit codes in a similar fashion.

Perhaps I should backtrack and list the references I am using in attempting to clarify my question. Over the decades I have collected as many references as possible on the 325th FG. I will list only the main books that pertain to the subject. 1. Checkertails: The 325th Fighter Group in the Second World War by Ernest R. McDowell 2. Herky!: The Memoirs of a Checkertail Ace by Herschel H. Green 3.. Aces of the 325th Fighter Group by Thomas G Ivie 4. Aces, Pilots & Aircraft of the 9th, 12th and 15th USAAF by David Weatherill As the previous member indicated, tail and wing markings evolved during the time the 325th FG flew P-51Bs and Ds. The subject in question, 'Stout Burr-Bon', #18 carries late war (post Feb/Mar?) markings of full tail/fuselage black and yellow checkers. A series of inflight photos of #18 flying over the Alps have appeared in numerous publications over the decades. The first one I was aware of can be found at the top of page 34 of the old Aircam Aviation Series No1: North American P-51D Mustang in USAAF-USAF Service. This series of photos were taken from both the port and starboard side and clearly show the markings on the fuselage. Wing markings are less clear. A more detailed photo can be found at the top of page 71 in the above reference No. 1 showing a full port view with better but less than perfect wing markings. For me, one of the major issues interpreting b&w photos is the type of film/filters used. The red spinners/noses usually appear almost as light as yellow, hence my questioning the colour of wing tips. The colour cover photo of The Partisan found in reference #4 shows the wing tip in yellow with yellow wing root stripes, no yellow wing tip stripes but in full late war tail checkers. On page 72 of reference #1 are two inflight photos of 'Dusty Butt' #100. The wing tip colour extends to the edge of the star and bar. The red nose is almost an off white shade. So did this aircraft have yellow inboard and wing tip stripes with a red wing tip? The cover art in this book shows a P-51D #100 with yellow and black wing tip stripes. A b&w inflight photo of this aircraft can be found on page 116 of reference #4 showing yellow and black checks, not stripes! The spinner and nose are a lighter colour (red?) but with a black stripe. I could go on and on...and on, but you get the idea. Again, there seemed to be no standard late war markings. Some aircraft had only yellow wing tip stripes, some had both inboard and wingtip stripes, some had red wing tips. Referring to that b&w photo on page 71 of reference #1, my interpretation is that 'Stout Burr-Bon' had yellow wing root stripes and possibly red wing tips. Neither wing tip indicates yellow wing tip stripes. Was the wing tip yellow or red, or was it painted at all? Was the number 18 outlined in yellow like many late war aircraft? Thanks for reading this long winded diatribe. Clarification would be appreciated. Remember when we were kids and painted our models using the box art for reference and left over paint used on the kitchen and hallway walls!

Thanks for taking time to respond. I printed out copies of those two inflight photos you included several years ago. The best image I have so far is found at the top of page 71 of Checkertails by Ernest R. McDowell. From this reference I have concluded that this aircraft had yellow wing root stripes and may have red wing tips as they appear close to the red spinner/nose. I believe the 317th FS used yellow when they outlined the aircraft number but it is hard to see if this applied to this aircraft. I'd enjoy hearing the opinion of other members who may have access to this publication. Even better, are there other photos that might help?

I have an ancient Micro Scale 1/32 decal sheet (32-26) which includes the markings for 'Stout Burr-Bon' flown by Lt. Clement Burr from the 317th FS that I have wanted to use since the late 1970s. The main reason for the delay, besides having a short attention span, is a lack of photo verification concerning marking details. I have several photo references so fuselage markings are not an issue. I am uncertain about the wing markings as the inflight photo angles make it difficult to see clearly. There is a photo in a Squadron Signal book that is nice but that in my opinion still lacks clarity. Can anyone verify if this aircraft had both inner and outer yellow wing stripes and if it had red wing tips? It appears that near the end of the war there were no uniform markings especially concerning wing markings and it may have depended on the squadron or the pilots preference. Photo reference or informed opinions would be greatly appreciated. Cheez, I forgot to also ask if there would be yellow or red outlines on the numerals for '18' as many of the Mustangs had squadron colours added late in the war.

Thanks for taking the time to give me a heads-up as to what to expect. I have already cleaned up the main wheel wells and will take your advice as to making the resin parts fit. Having the attention span of a four year old I'm hoping to be able to stay focused on this time consuming build-up. So many kits...so little time...such a short attention span!

Nice to see another 1/32 Lightning completed, Mr. 'bookcase'. Well done. I started mine over 10 years ago, have all of the major pieces taped together, got distracted and put it on the back burner until last week. I too was moved to purchase all of the resin aftermarket sets but have yet to receive them. Did you encounter any major issues adapting the resin to this vac form kit as I imagine these resin sets were made for the Trumpeter kits? I have never heard any negative comments about the Echelon kit, especially how it compares to the Trumpeter kit. Has anyone ever used any of the Trumpeter kit parts on their Echelon kit?

The last two comments were the first to address my original question as to the dark under surfaces of this P-40E. Much appreciated gentlemen! They help explain my last post as to the possibility of unit level experiments using local available paints in new camouflage schemes. As I indicated in my first posting/question, photos of other P-40s seem to have this same type of paint scheme.

Many thanks for that latest comment. I agree with your conclusions that at this late date it will be impossible to conclude who should be given credit for the shoot down. When you have three or four pilots contributing to this 'kill', who deserves credit? As far as doing a model of a Korean War Sea Fury involved in that historic engagement, a modeler appears to have a choice as to the markings and they wouldn't be wrong!

Many thanks for the interest shown. My references concur with the two most recent comments concerning the serial number and the original colour scheme. Referring to my original question concerning the dark lower colour seen in the photos I referred to. It is not a 'Sky Gray' but a much darker colour. If one of the members has access to the book I mentioned and whose computer skills are greater than mine maybe it would help if interested parties saw them they could better understand my hand wringing and questioning. My thoughts are that some airframes were repainted while on operations, but in which colours? It appears to me that one has to consider the time and area of operations. For example during the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe went through a transition period in mid-1940 when they were experimenting with new camouflage paint schemes. While there were 'official' standards, different schemes were experimented with down to the unit level. Anyone interested in Me-109E colours can sympathize with my comment. By late 1944/early 1945 the Luftwaffe went through another transition period as it adjusted to new conditions. At appears the U.S. military had to deal with the same issues as they searched for more ideal colour schemes. Witness the evolution of U.S. Navy colour schemes during in 1942/43. Did the USAAF go through the same evolution...down to the unit level in the Pacific Theatre? What paints were available in early 1942? After all they were at the end of the supply chain. I am enjoying this exchange of opinions and perspectives and hope that more informed members can contribute to this exchange.

Thanks for your quick response, Mike. That top photo in your web reference is the one found in the reference I mentioned. While we're waiting for further comments on my initial question I'd like to add another observation/question about this aircraft. There appears to be a noticeable contrast in the colour of the fuselage colour and that of the 'quarter panel' behind the cockpit. A comment on this subject was made by 'Modeldad' on October 11, 2008 in another Hyperscale topic on P-40s. It included a colour photo of what appears to be a P-40E in the South Pacific theater. This green shade is much lighter than the fuselage colour. As Modeldad suggests, was this just a "one-off production run, or what." It appears this colour discrepancy was more common than we thought. My computer skills are wanting and I'm unable to include photo references. Comments, anyone? And I don't mean on my lack of computer skills!

While thumbing through my P-40 reference folder I came across a Hyperscale comment made by Nic Millman in March of 2007. It had to do with the markings/colour scheme of the well known 'Stardust/Oklahoma-Kid' a P-40E flown by Captain Andrew J. Reynolds in early/mid 1942. In this thread, Nic mentions the dark under surface of this aircraft. Five photos of this aircraft can be found on pages 9 and 10 of 49th Fighter Group by Ernest R. McDowell, a Squadron Signal Publication, 1998. Normally the colours were Medium Green and Dark Earth (upper) and Light Gray (lower). When comparing other photos in the book of P-40Es there is a noticeable contrast between the lighter coloured under surfaces and the upper colours, especially in the nose area. The large inflight photo at the bottom of page 10 suggests the bottom colour is quite dark, not Light Grey. A similar lack of contrast can be found on 'Dont Worry!', bottom left, page 11 and two photos of nose areas of P-40s on page 13, top left and second from top at the right. Have these questionable colour schemes been addressed and resolved in the past and I just missed them? I recently purchase a 1/32 decal sheet from DKDECALS. Their instruction sheet shows the aircraft in the normal MG/DE/LG colour scheme. I would appreciate reading comments helping to explain this discrepancy before I proceed any further in my build-up.

I think we're on the same page relative to your latest comments, Mark. I'm going to hold off hoping Carl Molesworth can add his take. Let me know what you find out. Buz has been a BIG help already. Having two big hitters adding their take should answer our questions. Thanks again for your comments. Regards, Brian

Wow! I'm being reminded how little I know about this topic. Many thanks to Mark and Buz for taking the time to respond to a topic that most of us know little about. The original purpose for starting this whole discussion was that I wanted to build a model of a 325th FG P-40. If I may, I'd like one of these gentlemen (or any one else for that matter) to verify my questions/conclusions. 1. My model will have the ventilation windscreen window and a six gun armament. 2. My model will have the two colour upper surface colour scheme. 3, I've always wanted to do #40 TRIXIE in a OD/NG camouflage scheme (just like in the colour profile artwork). In other words could a P-40F be in OD/NG or were all #40 TRIXIEs in two tone upper camouflage colours? I've already taken out my Hasegawa P-40N and am thinking about working on that until I feel confident about the above comments. Until then I'm going to go in the corner and bang my head against the wall! Thanks again gentlemen for your input!

Referring to the photo evidence we have at hand, Mark, your conclusions are very reasonable and make sense. If you don't mind, I'd like to beat this dead horse into the ground! Referring back to my original whining about contradictory information, the colour profile on page 58 of Carl's book captions the artwork as "P-40L-5 42-10664", while the photo you referred to on page 66 has the caption which calls 'White 40' as "P-40F-15 (41-19893". Can we blame the editor? Who cross references this stuff? You raised an interesting observation concerning the camouflage scheme. I have often wondered why TRIXIE was in an OD/NG scheme while most or all of the other aircraft were in the Dark Earth/Middle Stone scheme. I find the OD/NG scheme more appealing but for me our photo references make it difficult to judge as the aircraft finish was very faded and worn and there is no distinct sharp edging between the two colours. That photo of 'White 61' on page 16 appears to lack a yellow surround on the fuselage star. Was that photo taken at a later date when the nose art was changed? Good catch! On the topic of insignia, the photo at the bottom left on page 12 of Checkertails shows a 'star and bar' without the blue edging on the bar. I take it the upper port wing insignia would be the same. Any comments? The horse may not be dead but it's barely breathing! Wanna give it another kick? Brian

Many thanks, Mark, for taking the time to add to the subject. I love how you preface your comments with "assume". Your are so right. I guess all we can do is eliminate as many conclusions as we can. As to those photos on page 16 in Checkertails, I'd like to add my observations. First off, I'd have to assume (damn, that word 'assume' again) those two photos showing 'White 40' with that "makeshift fire bomb" were taken at the same time. Secondly, if you look closely at the paint chipping/weathering on the starboard leading edge wing root you can see the same pattern of wear. For me, this shows those three photos are of the same airframe taken at approximately the same time. As to the photo at the bottom left, it too appears to have the same paint chipping/weathering that the other three photos show. It's the armament of this airframe that has me scratching my head. At first glance it appears that it has the six gun armament of an 'F' version. But it is kind of hard to REALLY be sure in that if you compare it to the close-up photo at the top of page 17 which shows some sort of light coloured domed plug in the outer gun port. Is a similar plug used on 'White 40/TRIXIE'? Hard to tell for sure in a small photo. Other photos of 325th FG P-40s show various gun modifications e.g. bottom left photo on page 16, top left photo on page 14. The often reproduced photo of Lt Col Baseler's 'Mortimer Snerd/Stud' show the outer gun port completely covered, but I believe this aircraft was a 'L' version. Whoops...my mistake. Photo caption on page 11 of Aces of the 325th Fighter Group (Osprey #117) indicate Baseler's P-40 was an 'F' version. However, this shows that there were several ways that an 'F' version could have the outer gun ports modified. Thanks again, Mark, for your input as it has made me exam this series of photos again, and again, and again... Brian

I guess what this all boils down to, for modeling purposes, did 'White 40/TRIXIE' have a four gun armament and that port windscreen frame for the ventilation window. At some level it isn't conclusive proof what the serial number was if many 325th 'F' versions were modified in the field to 'L' versions. I was looking at the starboard view of this aircraft AGAIN and noticed that one can make out that diagonal windscreen frame even though the photo is taken from the starboard side. That's proof enough for me. Now did 'White 40/TRIXIE' have the outboard gun removed from each wing? It appears many 325th FG birds did. Would all three squadrons want to bring all of their aircraft up to one standard i.e. make them all operate like the later 'L' version. I hope Buz can add his perspective on my take. Anyone else want to jump in?

I was drawn to look through my references again (I really need to get a life, the lawn needs cutting, the windows need washing...) this afternoon and on page 16 of the Squadron/Signal Publications Checkertails by Ernest R. McDowll I found a b&w photo of 'White 61' with the caption reading, "Captain Joeseph (sic) A. Bloomer also named this P-40, side number 61, TRIXIE. Bloomer was the commander of the 318th Fighter Squadron." One can make out the first three digits of the black serial number on the tail as '210'. As indicated in my earlier post, the profile caption from P-40 Warhawk Aces of the MTO, "P-40L 42-10664 'White 40' of Capt Joseph D Bloomer..." The first three digits in this caption of 'White 40' matches the digits of 'White 61'. These references suggest, as Mark indicated, that Bloomer flew several P-40s named TRIXIE. I'm not sure what this proves. I feel that an enlarged photo of the one found at the bottom left on page 12 of Checkertails would solve the problem as it shows a 3/4 front starboard view of TRIXIE. One can make out the wing armament, but not clearly enough to verify if it has the four or six gun armament. But then, did some 325th 'F' models have the outboard guns removed as some pilots did? That's it...I'm going to go and cut the lawn!

Wow! I was typing my last comment when you posted your latest comment. Very interesting comment on your part as well. I'm not sure what to believe now. Not your comment, but the contradictory information found in Volume 43 in the Osprey Aircraft of the Aces series: P-40 Warhawk Aces of the MTO by Carl Molesworth. On page 58 there is colour profile of 'White 40' with the caption 'P-40L-5 42-10664 'White 40' of Capt. Joseph D Bloomer, Co of the 318 FS/325 FG, Mateur , Tunisia, September 1943. On page 66 of the same book is a b&w photo of 'White 40' with the caption "...while flying P-40F-15 (41-19893) 'White 40', nicknamed Trixie, over Pantelleria." This is an example of what I commented on in my opening post concerning contradictory information. What is a modeler to believe? May I ask your source of information as it may be more accurate then what I am basing my conclusions on. Many thanks for taking the time to respond. Oh, boy, the story get more muddled. I just went through my references again and found a photo on page 18 of the Squadron/Signal Publication Checkertails by Ernest R. McDowell. The caption reads: "Captain Joe Bloomer looks at the damage to TRIXIE after a rough mission..." The pilot is sitting on the port wing near the windscreen which does not have that later modification. However, it is in the two tone camouflage paint scheme while other photos show TRIXIE in OD/Neutral Grey.

Very appropriate photos, Buz. In fact I was sort of aware of this in that I failed to complete the paragraph I included. It states the following: "However, it appears that this later windscreen with the ventilation panel was sometimes used as replacements on the earlier versions." My bad! Also, as I recall, the 325th didn't turn all of their P-40F's over to the 33rd FG but were able to keep some of them. Poor explaining on my part. Thanks for your correction and comments.