Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


greatgonzo last won the day on April 24 2013

greatgonzo had the most liked content!

About greatgonzo

  • Birthday 04/05/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,941 profile views

greatgonzo's Achievements

Established Member

Established Member (3/9)



  1. E&M - Erection & Maintenance Instructions. Possible but doubtful. The radio specification for aircraft send overseas states SCR-522 as standard equipment for fighters going to ETO. Both, assembled and crated. There isn't. The insulators were not removed and it was at unit level to deal with them or not. That is AFAIK. As stated above, both versions are seen on the operational aircraft. Looking for other ships of the same time frame and unit is a way to get some educated guess if no pics of chosen plane available. As usual :).
  2. 3. Yeah, E&M agrees with You :). 1. You mean SCR-522 radios? Yes, VHF radios where used at ETO long before first USAAF aircraft took off of the British soil. Americans had to adapt and did.
  3. 1. MkII British gunsight - standard issue at ETO. 2. Yes, but it is control box for SCR-522 radio. 3. It will be switch box for CE propeller, of course. You can see it in the pictures in the link You provided.
  4. I have doubts. Malta is not my area of interest, so I'll be glad to be corrected. When MkIX came to Malta the need for special camouflage was not a priority any more. The danger for the island was gone, the intensity of the battle was gone. Invasion of Italy was supposed to be a new battlefield. Other Maltan new Spitfires do show classic two colour camouflage on top. The only pic of T-Z I know is of quite poor quality. I worked on it just a little bit and in my opinion it is required to invest a lot of will in it to see one colour scheme on upper surfaces.
  5. It was painted on the squadron level in PAF. The erks were not very familiar with heraldic rules. Not many people are today. Although the position of colours on the checker board is quite controversial subject in Poland it doesn't mean everybody knows which version is which by heart . I know some modellers do :).
  6. If You are going to use teardrop shaped tanks, don't. Never used on 56th P-47.
  7. There were no camouflaged Bubbletop P-47s produced for USAAF. Remember every aircraft on the line was predestined to specific TO including information was it the standard order or replacement one. At the time there was no reason to paint the plane except the lend-lease orders. That does not mean there were no corrections after leaving the gates of the factory. AFAIK Mexican aircraft were transfered from USAAF as were many of the RAF birds. But I don't know much about Mexican unit.
  8. Brazilian P-47s were lend-lease aircraft, and as such they were painted OD/NG on production line. USAAF P-47s were NMF-ed at the time. Any American Bubbletop with camouflage on was painted in the field, or acquired from Brazilian unit (or French, but I don't recall any example). Not necessarily in whole. The famous Raymond Knight's 'Oh Johnnie' of the 350th FG is a good example of ex Brazilian fuselage with new NMF wings fitted.
  9. It's GABRESKI/SAFFORD/SCHACKI/DIFRANZA. The letters should be black though. It is a FB hosting so the link probably will be inactive soon.
  10. As said, I can see both versions and I could argue for both. Which clearly shows I know sh... .
  11. Ah, here we are, I didn't get that! You mean we have NMF wings with painted flaps fitted in the picture? I would say the wings are painted. And it doesn't make sense to me fitting painted flaps, then removing them to paint the wings and fitting them again. I don't know for sure, of course, but what could have been gained by such a strange procedure? Now, I made a trick I usually perform when in doubt. I looked at at the picture forgetting my first impression and and trying to see the opposite idea. 9 of 10 times in these occasions I am able to see it, this opposite one. No surprise I did see it this time too... .
  12. When I wrote -there's a lot 'seems' and opinions- I meant my post only and I was trying to sound apologising. I could rewrite the next paragraph of Your post word for ward answering this question. Just having ideas from pic You've posted and alike. Yet, this picture of Yours alone clearly defines the process. In my opinion :). Of course You are right mentioning the priming being less used later on. Then it came back a little when reports from the front arrived mentioning increasing corrosion problems. I am talking general here, not pointing specific P-47 instructions. As I said, with later, not camouflaged P-47s I would go for elements primed and over sprayed with silver paint or just anodised. For Lend Lease birds I would circle back to the beginning with ZC primer and camouflage colour on top. But these wouldn't even be opinions. More like guesses I'd say.
  13. E&M is not quite clear about that. My opinion is hinges were primed with ZCY. It seems (well, almost for sure) wings were painted fully assembled, less ailerons and flaps, meaning the colour of the under surfaces was sprayed on the hinges too. With NMF aircraft, I would say the hinges were sprayed a coat of silver paint or anodised. Lot of 'seems' and opinions here, I am afraid, but the pics of D-4 taken out of New Guinea jungle seem (again ) to get along with this idea.
  14. Cool then :). Turtle buck under the hood was NMF for silver aircraft just like Tbolt said. No reason to think different. And light reflexes are doing their job on many pics. OD anti reflex panels are camouflage colour here and so was the top fuselage space under bubble canopy. Who knows, but I disagree. Are You sure we are talking about the same picture? If not, glad to send You mine, so You can admit I am not ;).
  15. Not me. I really don't like this statement, as it is far to general and opens door for unsupported speculations. When you start to study anomalies of finishes or equipment it usually turns out these are result of agreements between manufacturer and purchaser, or at least internal factory instruction. And usually it is possible to define the period when it was even possible with many aircraft being known to be excluded out of such 'strange finish pool'. Of course with thousands aircraft of one type produced not ordinary examples had to happen, yet it is always better to have an explanation for anomaly, and it better will not be 'it could have happened', or 'they used whatever fell into their hands'. This is general idea and not meant as personal to You :). The pics I am talking about are clear close ups and there is no doubt the effect is not generated by light games. True, it happens very often and may be misleading but not here. The thing is we cope against consequent US way of finishing fighter aircraft in these areas (under canopies and hoods) being valid for both Army and Navy, production process evidence and many pictures. It is up to modeller to decide what it was, yet in my opinion it would be better to recognise the whole background, or at least as much of it, as possible.
  • Create New...