Super Aereo

Which is quite interesting, even if he forgets to expand a bit on IR sensitivity, which did make a difference.

Not necessarily, if you bear in mind that different versions of 81 and 82 existed at the same time. It has to be borne in mind that by then moving materials by road or rail across Germany was no small feat due to Allied interdiction, so one could even imagine that those versions might even have been regional according to local availability of particular pigments/components...

Actually, according to Kiroff there are three distinct formulae for 81 (of which one is brown in colour) AND three distinct formulae for 82 (but just one for 83, so far). Last year somebody claimed in a Facebook group that he had recreated 83 following the quantities in the formula by using acrylics, and that the result was green. I tried to bring to his attention that using a mixture of modelling colours is not the same as recreating an aeronautical paint starting with pigments, additives, lacquer and solvent (varying pigment size and their intrinsic colouring power alone can make huge differences), but he just would not listen, which goes to prove how entrenched in their own ideas people can get. The better angels of my nature took over and I abandoned the conversation before telling him that he might as well try with crayons or felt tip pens, but I believe he is still proud of the geniality of his method. 'Nuff said... Flavio

In any case there are zero mentions of RLM 83 as a green colour and zero mentions of its presence in any aircraft factory, while we have the Erprobungstelle Travemünde document calling it blue and the original recipe giving a plain blue colour. So it's two documents for blue and zero for green. I know that Hitchcock back in the day said that 83 had been proved to be a green, but the total lack of any official documentation in that sense makes me think that he might have used a wrong turn of phrase. Flavio

Slip of the finger - plus I used the E to make it plural... 😜

No, they were not a requirement.

Good point, RLM 66 was a protective coating, after all, but so was RLM 02. What seems to be certain, so to speak, is that a darker grey than RLM 74 was used to fill in the fuselage Balkankreuze. Flavio

McDermott does mention that he has read mentions of RLM 83 as a dark blue, but he seems not to be fully aware of the research and discoveries of Ullmann and Kiroff, so he still refers to 83 as a dark green. As we all know, or should know by now, 83 appears in the Sammelmitteilung 2 of 15 August 1944, but no hue for it is mentioned. For decades it was deemed logical that 83 would have been a green, initially a grass green, before it was somehow decided that it must have been a dark green and that 82 was the lighter one. Still, no document ever mentioned its real hue before Ullmann finally discovered that RLM 83 was indeed a dark blue for maritime use. A few years later, Kiroff asserts that three distinct formulae were approved for both 81 (brown and green) and 82 (green in different hues). This is what we know so far, but not everybody seems to have followed these developments in print or on the various forums and social media. Mr McDermott seems to have carried out his research without following this debate. Does this make his books useless? No, they do contain interesting information. Can he be trusted 100%? Obviously not, even Poruba changed his mind on the same (colour) photos on occasion, and his interpretation of b/w photos is as good as anyone's. Are McDermott's books worth buying? If you are interested in discovering some unpublished photos and documents, probably yes. If you are after proofs and certitudes, I would say no: you will still need to apply your judgement to decide yourself how likely or unlikely some of his ideas are. Regarding the use of 66 as an external colour (here limited to the fuselage Balkankreuz area): I don't see why not, since the German aircraft industry of the time was a lot more chaotic than most people realise. Again: these cannot be seen as definitive books on the subject, but unless the author has somehow concocted an elaborate hoax (something I have no means to investigate thoroughly), his research appears genuine and it's not without its interesting theories. Flavio

Yes, some were deployed without tropical filters. Several examples are shown in "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in North Africa" by Andrew Arthy and Morten Jessen

I think the author mentions extra stripes of RLM 70 applied across the wing upper surfaces for machines bound for the Eastern Front, in addition to denser mottling on the fuselage sides.

I believe that is the case.

You only use one set, the other is redundant, AFAIK. My guess is that when shooting to one side, this arrangement might make aiming easier.

Depending on the type either RLM 02 or RLM 66

Are you thinking of Witold Urbanowicz, who for a three-month period in 1943 was detached with Chennault's command in China?

I am not sure what combination of film/filter would cause this, but there is at least one example of WW2-era photograph that shows red lettering lighter than the yellow one next to it in b/w. It is in one of Dick Taylor's books on British Army colours and markings published by MMP.