Question about Bf 109 wheel well and landing gear colors

[Spitfires Forever]

Hello,

I am a out to apply paint to my Marseilles Bf 109 F and was wondering which RLM colors should be used for the wheel wells and landing gear. I am building the old but venerable Airfix 1/48 kit, just need the right colors for the afore mentioned parts.

Cheers

[Seawinder]

Almost certainly RLM 02 for both wells and struts.

[Parabat]

RLM 02 Grau. Main wheel hubs are just black.

Cockpit by the time of the F was RLM 66.

[Parabat]

A really good resource -

http://www.swannysmodels.com/Painting.html

[colonelmustard]

As previously advised by others, RLM 02 for wheel wells and landing gear. The interior of the cockpit was also RLM 02 up until late 1941, it then changed to RLM 66, but the wheel wells and landing gear remained RLM 02 throughout the war. I understand that Humberol 240 is a close match to RLM 02 by the way.

[Mike Starmer]

The wheels were coated with a very dark grey finish. The old Railway 105 used to be a dead match, I suggest a 1:1 of H32 and H33 now.

[Guest]

Thanks Gents, exactly what I was looking for. I do have one other question and that has to do with Luftwaffe DAK Me 109. Was the line of demarcation for the RLM light blue and the sandgelb a fine line or feathered? I am painting one of Marseilles' F-2s and want to get the line of separation between the two colors right.

Cheers

[Stonar]

The demarcation on all his 'Fs' (with the exception of W.Nr.8673, the one with the low and, in my opinion, slightly softer demarcation) always looks to have been tightly sprayed but not masked. How one interprets that on a scale model is one of those artistic rather than technical decisions

I used a slightly raised mask for this when I built one of these aircraft. I can't get the demarcation straight enough if I try to spray freehand!

Cheers

Steve

Edited December 24, 2015 by Stonar

[Wolfgang]

Like very often with the Bf 109, there is no general answer regarding the color for the wheel wells and legs of the 109.

RLM regulations said, that the oleo struts and the wheel wells should be painted in RLM 02. So these parts in Marseille' s 109s could have been painted in RLM 02. But very often 109's undercarriages and wheel wells were painted in the underside color. So it could also be possible, that his machines (all, one, some) was painted in RLM 78 ( or RLM 65 if the plane was produced for the european theater and later repainted for the desert).

regarding the hubs: according to the official painting guide, these had to be painted in gloss black. But depending from the enviroment and the weathering, the often looked more dark greyish.

Late in the war, you can also find RLM 66 Oleo struts and unpainted hubs and wheel wells at 109's

[Duncan B]

...and indeed Oleo struts in red too.

Duncan B

[Stonar]

Whilst I agree that these areas could have unusual or non-standard finishes, you have to look at the available evidence for each aircraft individually. Luckily there are photographs available for all four of the F series Bf 109s that Marseilles is known to have flown from early February 1942 until the last, in September. All but one were finished in the standard tropical finish, all were Erla built. They were all built in late 1941 and early 1942, a period when the construction expedients that would, years later, cause various and numerous irregularities and exceptions were not yet authorised. Only his last 'Friedrich' (W.Nr.8673) had been substantially refinished.

Any discussion of the interpretation of black and white photos invariably generates more heat than light. Wheel bays are generally not visible and undercarriage legs and covers are often ill lit. Having looked at most of the photographs of these four aircraft I don't believe that there is any evidence to support the contention that the undercarriage etc of any of them was anything but factory standard. In the absence of evidence for an exception I believe that the standard should be the default. Others may differ!

As an aside it might be worth remembering that the wings of a Bf 109 could be removed leaving the rest of the aircraft sitting on its undercarriage. This might well impact onhe way in which an aircraft was repaired and/or resprayed, you certainly couldn't do that with a Spitfire for example

Cheers

Steve

[Guest]

The demarcation on all his 'Fs' (with the exception of W.Nr.8673, the one with the low and, in my opinion, slightly softer demarcation) always looks to have been tightly sprayed but not masked. How one interprets that on a scale model is one of those artistic rather than technical decisions

I used a slightly raised mask for this when I built one of these aircraft. I can't get the demarcation straight enough if I try to spray freehand!

Cheers

Steve

It seems that the line is soft and not taped off, but to get the right bit of feathering I might try a bit of Silly Putty, or painters tape folded in upon itself. I can also try using my Grex pistol grip airbrush pressed up against the plastic with a very fine pin spray then fill in. It will definitely be a learning event, but this kind of challenge makes better modelers right?

Cheers

[Wolfgang]

I did not say that Marseilles Bf 109 (all or one) did not have RLM 02 legs. I just wanted to point out, that it is not certain to say that 109s had RLM02 legs up to the end of the war and it is not certain to say that Marseilles 109 had RLM 02 legs for sure.

Picture taken from the 109 F production:

Notice the pale legs and the RLM02 painted engine bearer or other engine parts. I am quite sure, the legs are not 02

http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/display.php?lang=de&auth=e&name=version_display&fotonummer=985

I am with you when you say it is not easy to judge from bw photos. But they can give you a hint.

i.e. this picture:

http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w480/reserve_22/messerschmitt-bf-109-f4-fighter-marseilles-north-africa-01_zpsdt66ouwj.png

If someone references to this picture and paints the legs in 02, I would say its ok to do so. But I would also say its ok to paint them in the underside color.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Wolfgang

[Stonar]

I did not say that Marseilles Bf 109 (all or one) did not have RLM 02 legs. I just wanted to point out, that it is not certain to say that 109s had RLM02 legs up to the end of the war and it is not certain to say that Marseilles 109 had RLM 02 legs for sure......... But I what also say its ok to paint them in the underside color.

I don't think we are in disagreement about anything except your final contention. In my opinion the default position would be the standard RLM authorised finish. It is certain that this was the officially authorised finish for Bf 109 undercarriage and wheel wells (as well as many other 'interior' areas) up to the end of the war. This is why I would go with that unless there is evidence for an exception. Exceptions certainly did occur. I already said that others may differ and they are perfectly entitled to their opinion too.

In the case of Marseille's 'Friedrichs' I would ask myself why might the undercarriage etc be non-standard? It seems most improbable that they left the factory (in 1941/42) in anything but a standard finish. I think they would have left the factory with the canvass lining in the wheel wells at this time. How long those lasted in the North African desert is anybody's guess.

The Luftwaffe, unlike, say the RAF in the early war years, didn't keep altering the underside colour of it's aircraft. We know that some Spitfires/Hurricanes already in service in 1940 had their underside colour changed, sometimes several times (white/Night to Sky, then briefly a Night port wing and so on). It is easy to see why the wheel wells and undercarriages might have been sprayed in the new underside colour. I don't see how this can be applied to an aircraft whose underside colour remained the same throughout its service life.

I don't think there is a right and wrong here, I just think that we can apply what we know of the rules and systems of the time to come up with a best estimate of how a particular aircraft was most likely to have looked at a given time. It's just an opinion, and mine is that Marseille's Bf 109 Fs most likely had RLM 02 wells and legs.

Cheers

Steve

[Wolfgang]

In my opinion the default position would be the standard RLM authorised finish.

Yes, that's allways the starting point and valid until other evidence

Exceptions certainly did occur.

Regarding the 109 there were a lot exeptions from the beginning.

In the case of Marseille's 'Friedrichs' I would ask myself why might the undercarriage etc be non-standard?

Because there is evidence that factory fresh 109 F's in common ( I dont want to point that especially to Marseilles plane(s)) were painted in non standard. Thats why I posted the link to the factory picture above.

I don't see how this can be applied to an aircraft whose underside colour remained the same throughout its service life.

Did it? Planes went often through so called "Frontschleusen" and the factory finish was adapted/changed according to the theatre.

The were also refurbished/overhauled from time to time and repainted. And as I wrote above, they sometimes left the factorys with paint on it that was not matching the RLM regulations.

I don't think there is a right and wrong here, I just think that we can apply what we know of the rules and systems of the time to come up with a best estimate of how a particular aircraft was most likely to have looked at a given time. It's just an opinion, and mine is that Marseille's Bf 109 Fs most likely had RLM 02 wells and legs.

I totaly agree

All in all, I dont want to say that Marseilles planes were not standard. I just want to point out, that there basicaly is a standard given by the RLM but there were, especially with the 109, not few exceptions.

All I wanted to express ist, that one can not say that the 109 had for sure RLM 02 legs and wheel bays from the start till late war.

[dazdot]

...and indeed Oleo struts in red too.

Duncan B

Red was used for the a/s models of the g so that ground crew put the right fuel in so I'm told

And that would make sense