Brian J

In researching the P-40's flown by the 325th FG I found information that I was unaware of that I'd like to share with members. I have long wanted to do a build-up of a Merlin powered P-40 and by adapting the old AeroMaster resin nose (conversion 629) and the Mauve Kittyhawk III kit along with other aftermarket items hope to do my subject, White 40 'Trixie' of the 318 FS, justice. I had long believed that the 325th flew the 'F' version of the P-40 but close scrutiny of photos plus more recent research suggests the 325th flew the 'L' version operationally. I quote the following from the Detail & Scale, Volume 62, Part 2, 'P-40 Warhawk': "The 325th Fighter Group had flown off the carrier USS RANGERc CV-4, to Tafaraoui, Algiers, in January 1943, but their aircraft had been taken away and given to the 33rd Fighter Group which had given its aircraft to the French. It was April 1943 before the 325th could reequip with P-40Ls and begin operations." Photos and profile drawings appear to have been miscaptioned many times over the years. These photos show a four gun armament instead of the usual six gun arrangement of the 'F' version and a panel that was added on the left side of the windscreen that could be opened for ventilation. These two modifications were found on the 'L' version. Four b&w photos of White 40 'Trixie' can be found on page 12 of the Squadron/Signal Publication Checkertails: The 325th Fighter Group in the Second World War by Ernest R. McDowell. At the upper right on page 17 can be found a photo that illustrates these two main external identifying features that show the difference between the 'F' and 'L' versions. If I have been in error in any of my observations I would enjoy hearing of them before I get too far along in my build-up!

Interesting comments. Who doesn't find the Hawker Sea Fury attractive? Top drawer! To reiterate, has there been official recognition for the claim made by Ellis of this MiG kill? I accept that under the circumstances of the melee in question it will be impossible to prove any claim beyond a doubt, but again, has Ellis been given official recognition for the shoot down of the MiG?

While scanning through the fundekals site I learned something I had never heard of when I viewed an attractive four view drawing of a Korean War Sea Fury O-106, flown by Brian 'Schmoo' Ellis. Apparently, recent research by Paul Beaver has concluded that Peter 'Hoagy' Carmichael was not the pilot who shot down that MiG-15 but Ellis. I would enjoy hearing comments if Ellis has in fact been given 'official' credit for this kill and is the four view drawing provided by fundekals accurate. I've wanted to do a build-up of Carmichael's aircraft for decades but would change the markings in light this recent research.

Many thanks for the quick response from Mark and Buz. Several questions have been answered and another one raised. I forgot about checking out the Carl Molesworth title, Mark. I too hold his research in high regard. I read in another reference about the red spinner but I'll be darned if I can find it. Both photos help verify the gun barrel installation. Well done, gentlemen! Now if we can verify if the number was on the tail as well. There appears to be a great deal of a light colour around the gun barrels. What colour would that be and what was it, tape residue? It is difficult to tell if the US ARMY on the lower wings is painted over in the photo Buz provided but which is shown on the colour profile of page 13 of the Molesworth book. Possibly, the letters were painted out at some point. It appears this aircraft was in service for over three or four months.

I would appreciate opinions and clarifications on a decal sheet I recently purchased, DKdecals sheet 32003, P-40E Warhawk/Kittyhawk Mk.I that includes the markings for Capt George E. Kiser of the 8th FS, 49th FG. The decal instructions indicate that the number 57 found on the lower cowling and tail are yellow as is the spinner front half. I have three references/books on the 49th FG and they all differ in their interpretation of his markings. The Squadron/Signal 49th Fighter Group by Ernest R. McDowell has a colour profile showing the aircraft in Olive Drab/Neutral Grey with a white 57 on the lower cowling and none on the tail. the prop spinner is Olive Drab. The Osprey Publishing 49th Fighter Group: Aces of the Pacific by William N Hess has a colour profile showing yellow numbers on the nose and tail but the aircraft has upper surfaces in brown and green with a lighter grey and an OD spinner (?). No doubt in a RAF colour scheme. On page 45 of the Schiffer publication Protect and Avenge: The 49th Fighter Group in World War II by SW. Ferguson & William K. Pascalis can be found a large black and white photo of four P-40s from the 8th FS. Capt Kiser's '57' can be seen at the end of the flight line. I have found another photo probably taken at the same time showing the port side except for the tail. The number '57' on the cowling appears darker than the white found in the star on the fuselage which I interpret to be yellow, not white. Three of the four of these aircraft appear to have dark gloss coloured spinner tip, Definitely not yellow. All four aircraft seem to have one colour on their upper surfaces, which I interpret to be Olive Drab. According to the text, I can find two colours which identify the flights of this squadron, yellow flight and blue flight. I include the following passage found on page 47: Blue Flt Ldr Capt. George KIser caught the bombers just before they crossed the shore...The Captain, however, preferred to remove his two outboard guns and reduce the ammunition for the remaining four weapons in order to better challenge the nimble ZERO one-on-one. From this passage I conclude that the dark, glossy spinner is a dark blue. Can anyone provide further evidence as to my conclusions i.e. OD upper surfaces, yellow numbers (I can't verify numbers being found on the tail) and a dark glossy blue spinner tip. One final question. If the outer guns were removed would a modeler just cut off the barrels and create a 'plug' or would the entire leading edge be sanded down leaving on two gun barrels on each wing? Many thanks to those taking the time to read this long winded post. Again, comments are welcomed.

I took 'Matave's' advice and put my two canopies in direct sunlight. There is a noticeable improved change. One has been almost restored to it's original clarity. I don't know if I'll get a response to a follow up question, but what the hay! Any opinions on the chances of these 'restored' canopies turning yellow again once they're attached to the model? Would dipping them in Future help keep them like new? It is nice to see that newer mass production kits have thin, clear canopies, often with the option of being open or closed. I have numerous vac form sets for various kits but they are for older (think Frog, old Airfix, etc.) kits that have been relegated to the bowels of my stash with little chance of reaching production status on my work bench. Opinions on the above would be appreciated.

I pulled out my Classic Airframes Vampire and Venom kits the other day and found that the Aero Club vacuform canopies I had ordered several years ago have turned yellow and are pretty much useless. They were well done, accurate canopies except for the yellowing. Does anyone know if Aero Club ever re-released ones using better/improved clear plastic? Did anyone else ever release canopies for these kits? For those of you who have built either of these two kits, what did you use for canopies? Opinions and comments would be appreciated.

I'm finally preparing plastic to build-up the two F-4Bs in question. I want to share some details that I have garnered concerning both early and later F-4Bs as well as a couple of other F-4 versions. The aircraft in question are: a) Cdr Lou Page's F-4B from VF-21 (17 June 1965) b) Lt Victor Kovaleski's F-4B from VF-161 (12 January 1973) Please correct me if I am in error concerning the following: -early (pre-F-4Js) lacked slotted stabilators (so Page's F-4 lacked them, Kovaleski's had them) -later F-4s had DECM antenna bulges on lower fuselage behind intakes and rear wing roots (so Page's F-4 lacked them, Kovaleski's had them...as did F-4Js) -later F-4s had upper mid-wing reinforcing plates (rectangular bumps) to strengthen landing gear (so Page's F-4 lacked them, Kovaleski's had them...as did F-4Js. Air Force F-4E/F/Gs lacked these plates/bumps. From what I understand, it may be that not ALL later F-4Bs but all F-4Ns had these conversions. But I have come to feel Kovaleski's F-4 would have from the photos I have studied. I would enjoy hearing from members who can add or correct any of the above observations/conclusions...hopefully before I finish my build-ups!

After re-reading my references (for the umteenth time) and considering the comments made here I agree with Antoine's latest post. I feel confident that finishing my F-4B model in BuNo 150646 markings is the way to go. I am now going to shut my eyes, plug my ears and repeat 'la-la-la-la-la' until my next project. Again, many thanks to the members who took the time to express their opinions!

Greetings, Antoine. Your latest comments have moved me to again try and clarify my question. I apologize if my topic heading was misleading but I tried to make my question quite specific in later comments as to credit being given to the first officially recognized MiG kill. As I suggested, over the years it has never been made clear, at least to me, who is recognized for that honour. You are correct, with photo verification found on page 8 of the Elward & Davies book, that BuNo 151403 had Showtime 611 nose markings in January 1965. In the text the authors state that, "Despite repeated radio calls, 'Showtime 602' could not be raised, and Murphy and Fegan were posted missing in action." The book later provides a colour profile on page 34 of BuNo 151403 with the Modex 602. I e-mailed the web-site of VF-96 last night hoping for comments from them. I'll post any findings if they respond to my questions. I'm afraid I don't quite understand your last comment , "And then, what would have been the Modex of Watkins/Mueller's phanatom, who were flying 102?" According to the above mentioned text, "VF-96's reports show that 'showtime 603' (Fraser) and '610' (Don Watkins) were on station at 40,000 and 35,000 ft respectively." Again, I apologize if this whole matter is getting off course. Hopefully members will jump in and add to the fray!

Many thanks to the gentlemen who took the time to respond to my questions. I'd like to to clarify a couple of points that may not have been made too clear on my part. First off, I am aware of the claim made by Capt Don Kilgus, flying an USAF F-100D Super Sabre. However, my initial question was, "...has there been an official clarification as to who is given credit for the first Navy MiG kill of that war?" My interest is in the first U.S. Navy claim and if it was ever made 'official.' I guess the question is, who or what organization makes a claim 'official'? The claim made by Cdr Lou Page was made and accepted by 'the powers that be' as 'official.' The Murphy/Fegan kill (they obviously never made a claim) nor the Kilgus kill have ever been made official to the best of my knowledge. That was the whole point of my question...who is given 'official' credit for the first F-4 Phantom kill? At this point I am leaning towards doing my 'first kill' build-up in Cdr Page's markings, unless someone can provide a more convincing argument. One final point. Several years ago I spent several days/weeks trying to dig up the correct/accurate call sign of F-4B BuNo 151403 at the time it was lost on April 9, 1965. The following quote is from an e-mail I sent to a fellow modeler who joined in on the exchange on another web-site: "Since my last e-mail it dawned on me to check back issues of The Hook quarterly and spent several hours going through over 25 years of back issues. The Summer and Fall 1990 issues include a two part history of VF-96 by Mike Weeks. In the second part he gives a detailed description of the 9 April 1965 encounter in which BuNo 151403 was lost. This article mentions three times that the call sign was 'Showtime 602.' The photo caption on page 34 in the Fall issue states that, "On that day LTJG Terry Murphy and RIO ENS Ron Fegan in Showtime 602 (seen here as 611) failed to return to Ranger after high altitude battle..." What I found encouraging was that in his acknowledgements on page 47 he lists at least ten or twelve former members of VF-96 who provided assistance, which leads me to believe the guys who were there should know!" The above e-mail was seen by other modelers and never questioned. At this point in time I stand by my conclusion that at the time of the loss of BuNo 151403 it was Showtime 602. Is there a Navy board or US military board that meets to go over claims made by pilots in the Vietnam War? Have they or it produced an official score card? I know, I know, get a life...it's not that important! Thanks again for all the comments.

I'm hoping for clarification concerning several aspects of early F-4 Phantom MiG kills during the Vietnam War, specifically who is credited with the first 'official' MiG kill. Without listing all of my references I will quote just one or two that add to my quandary. On page 11 of US Navy F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers, 1965-70 by Brad Elward and Peter Davies (Osprey Combat Aircraft-26) concerning the combat off Hainan Island on April 9, 1965, the authors state that, "The Hainan Island incident had provided both the first MiG kill of the war (although this was not officially acknowledged in order to avoid upsetting the Chinese)..." By the way, this F-4B, BuNo 151403 had the call sign 'Showtime 602' not 611 as found in several references, during this engagement. A few months later, on June 17, Cdr Lou Page, and Lt John C Smith flying 'Sundown 101' were credited with shooting down a MiG-17. On page 27 the above reference states, "The first two F-4 kills of the war were a proud moment for the Navy..." A photo caption on page 30 of Michael O'Conner's MiG Killers of Yankee Station, describing 'Sundown 101' as, "F-4B BuNo 150646, the first MiG killer." With the passing of over forty years since the end of the Vietnam War has there been an official clarification as to who is given credit for the first Navy MiG kill of that war? I want to do a couple of build-ups of F-4Bs of the first and last Phantom II MiG kills of the war and would like to get things as accurate as possible. On a final note, some references e.g. Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club by Rene J Francillon, state that 'Sundown 101' had BuNo 151488, not 150646. Colour profile 3 on page 35 of the Elward and Davies book shows it as being 151488. On page 91 of that book the profile caption states, "Sent to NAS Atsugi, Japan, on 17 March 1965, BuNo 151488 was take (?) on strength by VMFA-542. Its aircraft history card indicates that the fighter stayed with this unit until 14 October, although published reports state that it was used by VF-21 to down the Navy's first VPAF MiG of the war on 17 June." Furball Aero-Design decals provide markings for 'Sundown 101' as BuNo 150406. The above comments and references help explain problems that modelers have in reproducing accurate build-ups! Comments and clarification on the above would be greatly appreciated.

I just posted comments on using the 1/32 Tamiya Spitfire Mk XVI canopy and windscreen on the Revell Mk 24 Spitfire and thought I'd share my experience using the Tamiya 1/32 P-51D Mustang clear parts on the Revell Mustang. Like many others I was unhappy with the Revell clear parts as the canopy was warped and the windscreen was less then ideal. The Tamiya kit comes with three canopies, two of which are very similar to my eye. I taped one to the Revell kit and it was almost a perfect fit. I ordered a replacement sprue from Tamiya that included the windscreen and am happy to report that it too is almost a drop in replacement piece. I agree that to many it might be too expensive and not worthwhile but I think the Tamiya clear parts adds to an already very nice inexpensive Revell kit.

I have to disagree with the last comment that the Tamiya Mk XVI canopy won't fit. I posted my experience concerning adapting the Tamiya windscreen and canopy a while back. My computer skills are wanting so I'm unable to send a photo of the kit parts taped to the Revell Mk 24 that I have in front of me. Yes, the fuselage needs some filing, puttying, etc to make the Tamiya clear parts fit but there is NO comparison to these additions and the original kit clear parts. Of course there are other inaccuracies that also have to be dealt with to make this kit more accurate as well. Good luck with your build up.

I'm hoping I can get a clarification on the following question. Several years ago I purchased a 1/32 CAM resin set for Triple Ejector Racks (R32-027). They appear quite detailed and accurate except that they appeared a bit out of scale i.e. too large in the front end/nose. I recently picked up an Eduard Brassin TER set (632103) and made a comparison between the two sets. While they are both the same length the Eduard version is noticeably smaller/underscale in comparison especially at the front end. Can anyone verify which version would be more accurate in scale?

For those who may be interested, I'd like to share my findings on correcting this kit. First off, my apologies for being unable to include photos as my computer skills are wanting. I received the clear parts for the Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire Mk XVI a week or so ago after contacting the Canadian distributor for Tamiya. It took about six weeks or so to receive them. After much filling and sanding I've got the windscreen and canopy taped onto the fuselage. Not a perfect fit but it looks like they will fit. The hard part was making the two parts mate perfectly as well as to the rear fuselage. What an improvement! The kit canopy or any other aftermarket canopy cannot compare! By referring to detail photos found in the Aero Detail 30 Vickers-Supermarine Griffon Spitfire I started working on correcting the tail plane. I super glued four thin strips of sheet plastic to the leading edge and tips to the kit parts. I then spent the next week or so rasping/filling/sanding/filling/priming (you get the idea) the parts until they matched photos to my satisfaction. I'm going to have to rescribe both upper and lower surfaces. When I taped these parts to the fuselage I found that they no longer fit as the leading edges no long fit to the fuselage properly. After referring to photos (page 40) in the Aero Detail book I found that my corrected parts matched exactly to where they should. I'm now going to have to putty/fill in that area to make them correctly blend into the rear fuselage. On that note, the raised kit section at the base of the vertical tail is completely misshapen and will have to be sanded off and rescribed using those photos as reference. The gear doors have been super glued in, sanded/puttied/sanded and finally rescribed. The new resin nose and spinner look like they will work with more blending in. As my build-up will be in flight I have filled in the holes for the prop blades on the spinner. I plan on filing off all the upper wing bumps and bulges and use sheet styrene to reshape them. The only other major areas needing corrections are the radiators which I plan on attacking with sheet styrene. I have various patterns of wire mesh to simulate the rad interiors. I would appreciate comments from members as to areas I may have missed in my above comments. Again, I can highly recommend the Tamiya canopy and windscreen, especially if you have your build-up with wheels down and canopy open. They are worth checking into!

A question was asked on the WWII Discussion Form concerning the use of the 1/32 Tamiya Spitfire Mk XVI windscreen and canopy on converting the PCM Spitfire XIVc to a XIVe. 'Gingerbob' responded that the Mk XVI clear parts would be the same for the Mk XIVe. My question is, could I use those same Tamiya clear parts (windscreen and canopy) on my Revell 1/32 Spitfire Mk 24?

Thanks to the earlier advice I have the resin nose and vac form canopy in hand and am proceeding with confidence. I am using photos from Mark I Guide No. 2, Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire F Mk.22/24 and Aero Detail 30 Griffon Spitfire as well as the Airfix 1/48 kit as my references. So far, the main issues to be dealt with are the size and shape of the tail planes as well as the radiators. Sheet styrene, super glue and putty plus endless filing, sanding and filling should take car of those issues. Shape and size of upper wing bulges will also get attention. By sanding down the whole model I hope to tone down most of the heavy scribing. I would appreciate comments on a couple of points. The shape of the Airfix tail planes appear accurate when compared to photos. Three-view drawings show these longer in span with a different shape. What would these drawings be based on? As the years go by I have less confidence in and depend less and less on scale drawings. My second question has to do with the colour of the unit codes of 80 Squadron. Some references indicate Sky, some white and others a light blue. As a Canadian I would like to do my Mk 24 in the markings of Guy Mott, markings of W2-L, VN317. A full page colour painting can be found in Spitfire II: The Canadians. The artist shows W2-L with white squadron codes. Is that an accurate interpretation? Thanks again to the gentlemen who took the time to respond to my earlier questions. It is appreciated.

Thanks for the heads-up on the canopy. Placed my order for a replacement part last night. It wasn't until this morning when I pulled out my copies of Aero Detail 30: Griffon Spitfire and Mark I Guide : Spitfire F Mk. 22/24 and started to compare detail photos to the plastic that I realized what I'm getting into. Going to be a lot of work! Just one more question (for now), the kit windscreen looks a little bulky and I'm thinking of replacing it with a Mk V, Mk IX or Mk XIV windscreen from old Hasegawa Mk V, PCM Mk IX or Mk XiV kits. Did the windscreen change very much or at all compared to later versions? As my build-up will be in flight with a closed canopy and it will be interesting to see if that vac form canopy fits with whatever I decide on using for a windscreen.

Since this is a post war Spitfire I thought I'd ask my questions here. I recently picked up this re-issued kit as I would like to complete my 1/32 Spitfire collection. I know it will be a lot of work and I am girding my loins for the ordeal. I have already ordered the Master brass gun barrels and the resin nose and spinner from Iconicair. Are there any other aftermarket correction sets available besides the two mentioned? Is anyone familiar enough with this kit who can point out other areas of concern? I will be building my buildup in flight, wheels up, so a detailed cockpit and wheel wells are not a concern. I recall reading somewhere that the radiators and tail planes could use some correcting but I forget the details. Helpful comments would be appreciated.

Upon going through my references again I came across comments made by Jerry Crandall on Hyperscale on February 12, 2007 on the topic of 'JG 1 cowlings' that I'd like to share with other interested members. "The colored cowlings, checkers and stripes were altered during a time frame and has nothing to do with the Fw 190 subtypes which is why there are black and white striped cowlings on an Fw 190A-4. There are several black and white checkered cowlings known from 1./JG 1 and red and black checkered cowlings from 2./JG 1, but so far there are no known photos of 3./JG 1 that would be yellow and black checkers (my emphasis, Brian J). The red and black checkers known on 2./JG 1 are "Black 2", "Black 3", "Black 4", these featured in a short colour film of these a/c landing and taking off during a mission, we have a copy of this. After the checkers, I. Gruppe converted their cowlings to black and white (I. Gruppe color) stripes, and the appropriate Staffel colors were reflected in the numbers such as white, yellow, red. As I indicated in my initial posting, many of these comments were made several years ago. Has any new information turned up since then?

My hope that a Britmodeller member would respond by sharing two or three colour photos of the aircraft in question appears to be wishful thinking. After more mulling (and waiting with baited breath) on the subject a couple of thoughts have come to mind. One of the things that kind of bother me is that according to my initial posting, Jerry Crandall based his opinions on his interviews with veterans. The comments in my third example that no member of JG 1 could recall any colour combination other than a black and white checker pattern contradict these opinions. So who were these 'veterans'? Just because two or three people could or couldn't recall something doesn't mean it didn't happen...does it? A unit of the size of JG 1, spread over a relatively large area could have a lot of things going on in one Staffel that another Staffel wouldn't necessarily know much about. What time period are we talking about when we are told that one Staffel had white and black checks? Was it two weeks, a couple of months? If the other Staffels did paint their cowls in other colour combinations, how long did it take them to want to do so, and how long did did they keep those markings? Would members of one Staffel know THAT much about what was going on in another unit? Years ago I overheard a conversation at an IPMS National Contest in which Jerry Crandall made the observation that others have often made...never say never! Just because you or I have never seen or heard of something means very little except that we may not be well informed. At the bottom of page 156 in Volume Two , Defenders of the Reich by Eric Mombeek, Thomas A. Tullis includes a list names in his 'Acknowledgements' after his chapter/article on 'Chequered Noses': A guide to the Colours & Markings of Fw 190As of JG 1'. This list includes the names of many researchers who have spent years studying the topic of the Luftwaffe in WWII. I know that several of these individuals often view and contribute comments on this web site. It is my hope that one or two of them would be willing to add their opinions on the subject. While we are all students of the subject in question, these gentlemen are a couple of grades higher then the rest of us. Thanks for that photo MDriskill, you added it while I was typing the above comments. One point...I was hoping you would include those colour photos you have in your reference material!

Upon going over my reference material the other day in preparation for working on a couple of Fw 190s in various scales I came upon several sources that contradicted each other and thought I'd seek opinions that might clarify the issue. First off, I have decal sheets from at least three different sources, Eagle Cals, Cutting Edge, Aero Master, and Hasegawa kit decals for JG 1 190s. These sources all include markings for aircraft with black/white, black/yellow and black/red cowlings. While there seems to be agreement that for a short period of time this unit did have a black/white checkerboard cowl pattern, which can be verified with photographic examples, there seems to be disagreement if they ever had black/red and black/yellow nose markings. I include the following quotes to explain: 1. John Beaman/Hyperscale/April 22, 2005. "The idea of yellow/black checkered cowling for JG 1 has been controversial for some time. Jerry Crandall, of Eagle Editions, based his decals on photos and interviews with veterans of the unit. Nothing is 100% certain in this world but with the available evidence, Jerry concluded that there were such markings." 2. Thomas A. Tullis/Defenders of the Reich : Jagdgeschwader 1, Volume Two 1943/ 2001, pg. 156 "Another enigma of this period is the Fw 190A flown by Uffz. Kunze of 1./JG 1. His aircraft featured a yellow and black chequered cowling (third Staffel colour combination) on his first Staffel airframe. Two theories regarding this combination have been proposed. First, the cowling could have been originally a solid yellow cowl that simply had black checks added rather than repainting the entire cowl assembly in the proper Staffel colour of white. Second, the power egg (entire cowl/engine unit) could have been borrowed from a third Staffel aircraft due to engine problems." On the following page are five sample colour profiles of cowlings in black/white, black/red, black/yellow checks along with one with black and white stripes. 3. Bernhard Kunze's nephew/The Luftwaffe blog/Feruary 28, 2010. "Another area of Luftwaffe colours that seems to have become a real can of worms is the issue of JG 1 Fw 190 checker board cowls. These 'Sonderkennungen' or 'special markings' were among the first attempts to come up with a colour scheme that would facilitate aerial re-formation of JG 1 fighters after a pass through the bomber Pulks. The first 1./JG1 machines to be painted with this Schachbrettmuster (lit. chess board scheme) were photographed with plain white cowls and from around mid-1943 1. Staffel added black checks to the white cowling. The scheme didn't last long on the aircraft as reported by 1./JG 1 mechanic August Michalski; "one day our airfield at Deelen was raided by P-47s - their cowlings were also finished in the chequer board scheme. Because of this the airfield flak failed to open upon them - they thought they were our own aircraft - and the P-47s were able to strafe the field entirely unhampered...following this debacle our Fw 190s quickly had their checker cowls over-painted .." It is therefore difficult to see how these cowl colours could be anything other than black/white - after all why should they be?...Peter Rodeike who covered this subject in an article in German magazine Jet & Prop (issue 4/03) is of the same opinion. In his piece Rodeike quoted ground crew testimony from Michalski (above) and states that "no former JG 1 personnel could recall any colour combination other than white/black as ever being used on JG 1 Focke-Wulfs". Pretty categoric. He further states that information on yellow and red coloured chequers stem solely from 'interpretations' of archive film images held by certain US 'experts' and authors...In Rodeike's article one can trace two possible sources of the claims of yellow and red used. One is a b/w photograph of the Fw 190 "White 1" (or "4") assigned to Bernhard Kunzxe, 1./JG 1, WNr. 410055, showing an oil smeared cowling giving the impression of a shade darker than white, obviously (incorrectly) understood as yellow. A 1./JG 1 Fw 190 had white as the Staffel colour." The article goes on, but you get the idea. My point is, when a modeler reads opinions from people whose judgments are held in high regard, who do you believe? As you can see by the dates I included these opinions were expressed several years ago. Has there been any clarification on the subject since then? Can I build-up a least one or two kits using black and white checks with confidence that they existed? Which ones? On the subject of JG 1 Fw 190s I have one final question (I know, I know, when is this guy gonna stop). Both Eagle Cals (EC#6) and Cutting Edge (CED32068) have produced sheets for a Fw 190A-7, Yellow 6 with black and white cowl stripes and red Defense of the Reich tail markings from JG 1. Eagle Cal has the prop spinner in yellow, while Cutting Edge shows the spinner in black. Does anyone have an opinion as to which is correct? Thanks for reading. Opinions and insight would be appreciated.

Many thanks for your comments, Nick. To get down to specifics, I plan on doing a 1/48 build-up of the often photographed #68 for which there is a well known colour photo (among others) of this aircraft with R.T. Smith leaning on the port wing root. I am only able to make out one antenna wire in the photo which I conclude runs from the tail to the upper fuselage. Photos of some other aircraft indicate antenna wires running out to the wing tips. My conclusion is that over time there were different set ups. I plan on doing 1/72 build-ups representing one model from each of the three squadrons so getting answers to my original questions is still important to me. Comments on my observations about #68 would be appreciated.

Thanks for the informative comments so far. That last question on cockpit colours is interesting and I'm looking forward to comments by Nick. As to the antenna wire set up, Nick, what would you conclude would be the antenna wire arrangement. If a different type of radio system was installed would that imply that the antenna set up would change as well? Would all P-40's have a three wire set up for the whole time period they were in operation up to July, 1942?