Major Kurt Bühligen's Focke Wulf 190A-8 from JG2

[Basilisk]

I know I shouldn't enter another build, but I like event driven GBs and it would be nice to enter an opponent to my Tempest build.

 

I do like Major Kurt Bühligen's uniquely painted Fw 190A-8 which he apparently used on and after D-day.

 

I am aware this aircraft is already built by Valkyrie, but I will have a go at it using Eduard's 1/48 new "new tool" kit of the A-8.

I will receive the kit later this week together with some additional goodies.

 

I spent a bit of time looking into the colour scheme of this aircraft and the reality is that it is unknown and everyone's guess. Possibilities are:

 

RLM 76/02/74

 

RLM 76/02/71

 

RLM 76/75/74

 

But I do see some issues with all three schemes. Neither of them accounts for the darker rear fuselage and all three schemes would result in a low contrast between the two upper colours which is clearly not the case in the picture of the aircraft.

 

There is another picture of Bühligen's aircraft showing the other side.

Now this to me looks like it is painted in RLM 76/75/74 as shown in the profile above (note lighter lower engine cowling).

 

And sometimes after above picture was taken, the aircraft's upper colours was partially repainted with most of the airframe being painted in RLM 76/75, but keeping the rear of the fuselage in the original RLM 75/74.

 

 

There are some facts which support this. First the Fw 190 in the background which looks to be painted in the (at the time) standard RLM 76/75/74 scheme - and all the grey tones of these colours match the one on Bühligen's aircraft. Also the tone of the drop tank with sun on it is identical to the lightest tone on the fuselage.

 

In addition, note that the horizontal bar in front of the cross looks wider on the picture in the original colour scheme, but is narrower on the repainted aircraft (assuming it was re-applied), BUT the horizontal bar after the cross has still the same width as before repainting the aircraft, assuming the rear of the fuselage wasn't repainted.

 

And then the whole aircraft looks very clean like the paint is newly applied.  I also think RLM 76/75/74 would have been readily avalable at units level compared to RLM 02/71.

 

I realize these are only speculations of the events which could have resulted in this unique colour scheme, but they do sound plausible to me and the above profile is the scheme I will paint the aircraft in.

 

The RLM hues in the above profiles are taken from RLM color comparison and are based on the Ullmann colour chips.

 

Cheers, Peter

[Robert Stuart]

Sounds interesting Peter, especially with that range of colour options.

Question - Is the rudder in that last photo the same colour as the tail?

[Basilisk]

4 hours ago, Robert Stuart said:

Question - Is the rudder in that last photo the same colour as the tail?

That is a good question - and whenever someone is saying "that is a good question" they have no idea about the answer!

 

I would think it is also RLM 75 for the upper parts and 74 at the bottom. It does look slightly lighter, but it is maybe because the rudder is at a slight angle and reflects the sunlight a bit different. It is just too dark to be RLM 76.

 

But of course the rear of the aircraft could also be painted in RLM 02/74 or 71/74 instead of 75/74 .... Until a colour picture shows up, we will never know - and if a colour picture does show up (what chance is that - 1 in a Million), we will argue about the hues of the colours on the picture ...

 

Cheers, Peter

[JackG]

It looks like the original b/w photo has some kind of technical issue (either when photographed or when developed).  Notice the obvious light strip almost centrally located down the middle, and how the whole right side gradates to darker tones as well as increased contrast - not just the tail of the aircraft.  So in my opinion, the tail camou is the same as the overall aircraft. 

 

Just what those two colours are anyone's guess, but see no reason why it should not be anything other than the factory standard for this period.  Maybe the fact that no mottle is present, is what is influencing the viewer to think something different is going on here?

 

regards,

Jack

Edited June 12, 2019 by JackG

[Valkyrie]

Some great research here on this one, certainly a hot topic. There has to be some reason behind the many different versions. While researching my builds I found Priller had 2 aircraft so I wonder if maybe Bühligen had more than one or one of his 3 crash landings was maybe involved. Be great to see what will be uncovered and maybe a definitive answer might be found...

Il be following your build and your research and I’m also super excited to see what the new Eduard 190 looks like.

[Basilisk]

21 hours ago, JackG said:

It looks like the original b/w photo has some kind of technical issue (either when photographed or when developed).  Notice the obvious light strip almost centrally located down the middle, and how the whole right side gradates to darker tones as well as increased contrast - not just the tail of the aircraft.  So in my opinion, the tail camou is the same as the overall aircraft. 

 

Just what those two colours are anyone's guess, but see no reason why it should not be anything other than the factory standard for this period.  Maybe the fact that no mottle is present, is what is influencing the viewer to think something different is going on here?

 

regards,

Jack

There is no technical issue with the picture, but a reproduction issue. The book in which it is published (Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug Fw 190 A Fw 190 "Dora" Ta 152 H by Peter Rodeike) uses rather thin paper and the picture on the other side of the page showing through.

And the light strip almost centrally located down the middle is the unprinted strip between the two pictures above showing through the page!

 

13 hours ago, Valkyrie said:

Some great research here on this one, certainly a hot topic. There has to be some reason behind the many different versions. While researching my builds I found Priller had 2 aircraft so I wonder if maybe Bühligen had more than one or one of his 3 crash landings was maybe involved. Be great to see what will be uncovered and maybe a definitive answer might be found...

Il be following your build and your research and I’m also super excited to see what the new Eduard 190 looks like.

Researching and speculating is one of my favored tasks in building models. As far as I know, there are only the two pictures of this aircraft (taken at different times) shown in my first post and all the different variants are based on different interpretations on this pictures!

 

The kit arrived today in the mail and looks great in the box.

Looks to be a straight forward build without the complexity of the original release.

 

And here are some of the goodies I will use in the build.

 

Unfortunately there is one part needed for this build which isn't in the kit. Major Bühligen used an "Erla Behälteraufhängung" (Erla rack) instead of the more commonly used ETC 501.

 

The ETC 501 allowed to carry bombs and troptanks, but was heavy and not aerodynamic. The Erla rack on the other hand was only used for drop tanks and was much lighter. In addition, most of the joiners are fitted to the drop tank and weren't part of the rack as is the case with the ETC 501, resulting in a very clean airframe after ejecting the tank.

 

Does someone has some information how the part fitted to the aircraft looks like or even better, is there an aftermarket part for it?

Cheers, Peter

[Valkyrie]

Kit does look fab, il hold off to see how she builds up before buying five to build one. My first ever 1/48 is the early release Fw190 from Eduard and is paused as proving difficult, I do hope you are right that the build is now easier for these as Eduard do make great looking pieces and I’d like to love them..

Peter, what is that other 190 in the pic next to the one with the pilot with the dog? Is it the same airfield time part of Bühligen’s staff?

keep the research up to! I’ve nothing new to uncover, there’s so much information now I can even present an opinion 

[JackG]

Yes, that makes sense - the lighter vertical strip is a result of a book scan, with the back page showing through.    Any opinion on the gradation to darker tones towards right side of the photo?  I've seen this particular photo come up in the past on other forums, and it always seems to be the elephant in the room.   People ignore it and and rather speculate they are seeing some kind of rare repaint.

 

--------------------

 

For the Erla rack, I've checked my library (Squadron's 190 In Action and JG 26 by Caldwell), but no further info.  From what I gather, this was a field modification initiated by JG 26, and likely copied by JG 2.  Probably never factory produced, which would explain the absence of official drawings. 

 

HyperScale forum gives a description concerning the diagram you had posted:

 

"... the stabilization/suspension structure (2) that you see above was affixed permanently to the tank and then fastened temporarily to the steel structural member (3) depicted separately above, which remained on the aircraft and could be swung downward from a hinge (4) at its rear."

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/the-erla-drop-tank-rack-for-the-fw190-t138849.html

 

Google found one other diagram which looks to be from an Italian site, but cannot view it directly as the web page ends in error.  So here is a screen grab;

 

It seems when the procedure to jettison was initiated, the hinge at the rear ensured the tank would drop nose first.  Without a proper diagram, it's hard to say where the actual release point is - but even with the standard rack setup, I wouldn't be sure.

 

Here's a cropped scan from a Kagero profile:

 

 

regards,  

Jack

 

 

 

 

 

[Basilisk]

17 hours ago, Valkyrie said:

Kit does look fab, il hold off to see how she builds up before buying five to build one. My first ever 1/48 is the early release Fw190 from Eduard and is paused as proving difficult, I do hope you are right that the build is now easier for these as Eduard do make great looking pieces and I’d like to love them..

The new tool kit has a more or less identical parts break down as the 1/72 Fw 190A kit from Eduard, so far less complex and fiddly as the original tooling.

 

17 hours ago, Valkyrie said:

Peter, what is that other 190 in the pic next to the one with the pilot with the dog? Is it the same airfield time part of Bühligen’s staff?

Both pictures are of the Fw 190A-8 from Major Anton Hackl, Komodore of JG 76, summer 1944. But no mentioning where it was taken, so have nothing to do with Bühligen’s aircraft.

 

Great information on the Erla rack - Many thanks Jack. Shouldn't be too difficult to scratch build this.

 

15 hours ago, JackG said:

Yes, that makes sense - the lighter vertical strip is a result of a book scan, with the back page showing through.    Any opinion on the gradation to darker tones towards right side of the photo?  I've seen this particular photo come up in the past on other forums, and it always seems to be the elephant in the room.   People ignore it and and rather speculate they are seeing some kind of rare repaint.

But isn't speculate all we can do?

 

Yes the picture is slightly darker on the right side.

Most noticeable on the tree line. Yes one reason could be that it happened when developing the film or making the print. But it could also be that the tree line changed its angle and due to that are now in the shade and therefore darker.

 

The fuselage itself doesn't really change this much and the darker grey at the back can't be explained just by a slight darkening on the print. Also the Fw 190 in the back ground I referred some of the tones to is in the "darker" part of the picture anyway.

 

To me having it painted in RLM 02 or 71 would be exotic colours, but RLM 76/75/74 are commonly used at the time on Fw 190As. And wasn't it common that pilots experimented within Squadrons with various camouflage schemes? And isn't it a repaint because factory delivered aircraft didn't had splinter camouflage all the way down on the fuselage side as can be seen on the aircraft in the background.

 

And again, at the end it all comes down to speculation - maybe with a portion of an "educated" guess. I have seen around 10 colour profiles of this aircraft in publications and the web and they are all different! Reality is, no one knows and the possibilities are many

 

I did start building the kit and it is very nice, but the devil is in the detail. When building the cockpit, there are three choices how to build the IP and side panels - PE, decals or just plastic - and each choice has its relevant plastic part. Personally I don't like the digitally printed PE parts due to the visible printing lines. My preference would be to use the decals over the 3 dimensional cast plastic parts after painting them.

Now the Fw 190A side panels changed from version to version. Eduard caters for this in providing different side panel on the sprue and as far as I can say ( I am not a Fw 190 expert) part C20 and C15 as shown on the instructions are the correct parts coming closest to the panels used on an A-8. But the PE parts are different (assuming for an earlier version) and it even shows that in the manual. And the decals are different again (not matching the plastic or PE parts), so can't be used over the plastic part.

 

I know I counting rivets here, but it doesn't hurt getting it right. And talking about decals, they are the only disappointing part on this kit as the printing isn't the best with the black showing a lot of white dots in it (which don't show up on above picture but are very noticeable). Fortunately I don't use them for this build.

 

Cheers, Peter

Edited June 14, 2019 by Basilisk

[Valkyrie]

This photo is a real buster, but as it’s the only full profile we have, it’s what we have to work with.

 

Peter, does it say where and when the photo was taken at all?

 

I have no clue on the technicalities of photography etc, but could the rear of the plane be slightly shaded by the plane itself given the angle it is at, I think the shadow on the grass might possibly back this up? But I hope one of you will know just by looking at it. I am though now convinced the tail grey is a darker grey than the rest of the aircraft, that’s about all of an opinion I can offer. I am though stumped between the version on my decal sheet both wing splinter and colouration, to the many other versions presented. 

Its not rivet counting Peter, if you are going to build a scale replica of anything, particularly a real aircraft that was flown on D-Day by a real person, then if you are wanting to make it completely accurate, you have to do the research and have the proper drop tank fitting, IP, canopy hood, bulged fuselage cannon hood, armoured headrest, Masts etc. The biggest part however is the colour scheme and this seems to be the most challenging issue in this particular subject.  

 

I am doing Priller’s Kommodore machine and it’s an A-6...which will be a challenge to make accurate from an A-8 kit..

 

glad and to hear the new Eduard is more simple, i might have another lady crack at the old one

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Valkyrie said:

glad and to hear the new Eduard is more simple, i might have another lady crack at the old one

Depending on where you got too one the old tool,  this build tackles the kits problems

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235048443-148-focke-wulf-fw-190-anton/

 

over engineered and has areas where if you get it wrong, the whole thing is ruined, as well as the default option is having it all opened up.  This has some very good solutions, and well worth a read.

 

 

@Basilisk

FWIW, I'd suggest that the uppers are the same two colours,  note there is a slightly darker area on the ground at the rear of the plane, possibly diffuse tree shadow.

if you look at the dark colour on the wing, directly above the drop tank, and look at the horizontal tail darker colour, they are pretty close tonally.

the drop tank look a lighter shade than the lighter fuselage colour to me.

 

as for the scan line, try putting a sheet of black paper behind the page before scanning to even out the tones. 

 

HTH

T

[Valkyrie]

This is like whisky tasting, if nobody tells you what you should be tasting you are like oh, yeah got pears in there, then if the maker says can you taste sea salt, orange peel and dark chocolate you immediately can’t taste pear but all 3 flavours. I can now see these look to be 2 colours...

[Basilisk]

2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

FWIW, I'd suggest that the uppers are the same two colours,  note there is a slightly darker area on the ground at the rear of the plane, possibly diffuse tree shadow.

And which two colours do you have in mind Troy? I too thought first that the darker rear of the fuselage is due to shadow, bot there is a very strong shadow from the horizontal stabilizer which surely wouldn't be so strong if the rear of the fuselage is in some kind of shadow. Also note that the white tone of the fuselage cross and swastika is identical.

 

2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

the drop tank look a lighter shade than the lighter fuselage colour to me.

I checked the grey tones in photoshop and they are extremely close. And how do you explain that the tones of the Fw 190 in the background match (the assumed RLM 76/75 and 74) very well too?

 

2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

if you look at the dark colour on the wing, directly above the drop tank, and look at the horizontal tail darker colour, they are pretty close tonally.

Yes they are close. But why isn't the whole main wing darker? And couldn't it be some wear from gun maintenance?

 

2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

as for the scan line, try putting a sheet of black paper behind the page before scanning to even out the tones.

Yes that is the way to do it, but unfortunately I don't have a hard copy of the book, which is out of print for many years and your method doesn't work on PDFs

 

I do appreciate yours and Jack's opinion on this topic and I haven't made up my mind as there are some good arguments.

Cheers, Peter

[JackG]

Glad the posts on the Erla rack are of some help.  It's something I'll have to remember as I've got a 190 that will require the same scratch building.

 

I just looked at Osprey's book on JG 2, but unfortunately their reproduction of the Bühligen 190 photo shows the same  peculiarity of of the first two thirds of the image brighter than the remaining right side.  They have also included a colour plate of this one, finished in two tone greens (reminds me of the BoB era), but they are not certain enough to actually give a call out on specific RLM paints.  They also did not create a darker stripe on the tail section.   They do mention that the Geschwaderstab had a tradition of 'individualism and non-conformity'.  This certainly is reflected in the splinter finish on the fuselage sides.  Also noted is the double chevron are both of equal size, but usually the second one is smaller and sits inside the first.  The swastika on tail is also pointed out as abnormal, with the arms containing both slender and normal widths

 

Personally, I would still stick with the standard colours of the period - 74/75/76.  The fact that the werk number on the tail fin is present, and stenciling on the wing can be seen, this tells me those ares are untouched and are original factory finish.  Of course, if ground crew reapplied the stencil data, then it's back to guessing.

 

regards,

Jack

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

According to Wiki JG-76 started the war. Was then rolled into JG-54 in 1940. It was reformed into a seperate unit in the summer (July) of 1944. 

 

"The Geschwader was recreated in July 1944 at Salzburg from the Stab/Zerstörergeschwader 76. From 22 July 1944 to August the gruppe was based at Rotenburg and Athis in France."

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdgeschwader_76

 

Dennis

[Basilisk]

On 6/15/2019 at 2:19 AM, JackG said:

I just looked at Osprey's book on JG 2, but unfortunately their reproduction of the Bühligen 190 photo shows the same  peculiarity of of the first two thirds of the image brighter than the remaining right side.  They have also included a colour plate of this one, finished in two tone greens (reminds me of the BoB era), but they are not certain enough to actually give a call out on specific RLM paints.  They also did not create a darker stripe on the tail section.   They do mention that the Geschwaderstab had a tradition of 'individualism and non-conformity'.  This certainly is reflected in the splinter finish on the fuselage sides.  Also noted is the double chevron are both of equal size, but usually the second one is smaller and sits inside the first.  The swastika on tail is also pointed out as abnormal, with the arms containing both slender and normal widths

This has the potential to be an endless debate. The Eagle Cals decal instructions show the rear of the fuselage darker with a comment that colours are not known. Kagero shows the rear darker too in their profile.

 

I noticed that the swastika is larger than usual, but only saw the proportion differences after you pointed it out. Looks like most decal for this aircraft didn't include this abnormality!

 

On 6/15/2019 at 2:19 AM, JackG said:

Personally, I would still stick with the standard colours of the period - 74/75/76.  The fact that the werk number on the tail fin is present, and stenciling on the wing can be seen, this tells me those ares are untouched and are original factory finish.  Of course, if ground crew reapplied the stencil data, then it's back to guessing.

I intend to stick with the colours of the period - 74/75/76   And with the Werknummer present is another lead that the rear was painted 75/74 as this would have been the factory finish. Cant see to many other stenciling on the picture though, but this could be as the picture is slightly overexposed.

 

I did assemble all the internal plastic and PE parts.

The engine is certainly much simpler than in the original Eduard kit with only two parts, but sufficient as very little can be seen behind the fan blades.

 

The cockpit looks neat and nicely detailed.

I will add a Yahu IP. But as it isn't designed for the new tool Eduard kit, some mods had to be made.

 

The wheel bay looks very nice too.

The Master canon barrels are a worthwhile enhancement as the external barrel can be fitted at the end, making assembly and painting much easier - and they look good too.

 

I do have two questions. In the kit there is a cushion for the seat (part A14). Is this only used when none-flying personnel was seated in the cockpit without a parachute?

And the kit contains two optional wing cannon bulges (parts B27/28). Is there a rule which aircraft had them fitted and would Bühligen's aircraft had them or not - or is this another educated guess as they are unfortunately not obvious on the picture.

 

I will add some extra detail in the wheel well and then I can get started with painting the internals.

Cheers, Peter

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Basilisk

[Valkyrie]

More great debate and info on this one, and you are selling this kit to me and after market gun barrels too. 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

The wing bulges should be there if the outer wing guns are installed. The factory produced both 2 & 4 gun wings. If they've removed the outer guns in the wings to lighten the aircraft they were plated over. You need to decide if this plane was a two or four gun wing ? That will determine either bulge or flat plate.  

 

Dennis

 

EDIT: found this link. I think he used a 4 gun wing if so the model will need the bulges on the wing. My opinion only though. 

 

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Fw-190A/JG2/pages/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190A8-JG2-((+-Kurt-Buhlingen-Hessen-Germany-1944-01.html

 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Corsairfoxfouruncle

[JackG]

Good to see this one progressing...

 

Quick google on the seat cushion, and have read the parachute was strapped to the back (like a back pack), so the cushion was a necessary comfort feature.  Looks like a 'step' in the backrest to make room for it in the pic below:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/fw-190-a-8-seat-cushion.46887/

 

 

About the optional wing fairings - according to Squadron's publication on the subject,  standard armament on the A-8 was a pair of MG 131 in the fuselage, and four MG 151s (20mm) in the wings.  The two outer wing guns could be replaced with Mk 108s (30mm), and apparently this necessitated the use of the fairing for extra clearance.  Eventually the fairings would become standard factory issue, in order to easier facilitate the switch to heavier armament:

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=30787

 

 

 

regards,

Jack

[Basilisk]

19 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

The wing bulges should be there if the outer wing guns are installed. The factory produced both 2 & 4 gun wings. If they've removed the outer guns in the wings to lighten the aircraft they were plated over. You need to decide if this plane was a two or four gun wing ? That will determine either bulge or flat plat

Thanks for your reply, but after reading Jack's post, I think you are mistaken in regards to 2 & 4 gun wings.

 

18 hours ago, JackG said:

Good to see this one progressing...

 

Quick google on the seat cushion, and have read the parachute was strapped to the back (like a back pack), so the cushion was a necessary comfort feature.  Looks like a 'step' in the backrest to make room for it in the pic below:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/fw-190-a-8-seat-cushion.46887/

 

Should have worked that out myself - great information.

 

18 hours ago, JackG said:

About the optional wing fairings - according to Squadron's publication on the subject,  standard armament on the A-8 was a pair of MG 131 in the fuselage, and four MG 151s (20mm) in the wings.  The two outer wing guns could be replaced with Mk 108s (30mm), and apparently this necessitated the use of the fairing for extra clearance.  Eventually the fairings would become standard factory issue, in order to easier facilitate the switch to heavier armament:

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=30787

And this is great too. Apparently the universal wing began appearing with the fairings by at least July 1944, but individual aircraft could had the fitted already in early 1944. I won't fit them on my build as it was unlikely this aircraft was equipped with MG 151s as I would think they should be visible on this picture but aren't - or are they?

 

Thanks for the replies.

Cheers, Peter

 

[JackG]

Difficult to say if the fairing is there due to the photo quality.  The Osprey book on JG 2 caption this aircraft as a straight A-8, no R2 suffix added which would of then indicated the installment of the heavier 30mm cannon.  It does mention the previous Kommodore met his death flying a 190A-8/R2, but at this time the unit was still dealing with the Allied bombing campaign, while in June they were contending with the air superiority over the beaches?

 

Here is  photo example of the fairing, and even a decent photo indicates only the sides  are readily visible:

 

 

regard,

Jack

[Basilisk]

On 6/25/2019 at 12:07 AM, JackG said:

Difficult to say if the fairing is there due to the photo quality.  The Osprey book on JG 2 caption this aircraft as a straight A-8, no R2 suffix added which would of then indicated the installment of the heavier 30mm cannon.  It does mention the previous Kommodore met his death flying a 190A-8/R2, but at this time the unit was still dealing with the Allied bombing campaign, while in June they were contending with the air superiority over the beaches?

 

regard,

Jack

Indeed a tricky decision. I am still undecided which way to go.

 

I did progress a bit further with the build adding some extra details into the undercarriage bay.

I don't like the joint line along the front of the undercarriage bay, so I added some extra detail.

 

Here in place.

 

And some plumbing.

 

And a bit more here.

 

There wasn't a lot in the Fw 190 undercarriage bay, but showing what was there does enhance it a bit.

With the shell cartridge chutes in place. It is a Quickboost resin part intended for the old tool kit. but it does fit in the new kit with some modifications.

What I don't like are the large holes in the lower wings for the MG 151 shell cartridge chutes. Have to do something about this.

 

Until next time.

Cheers, Peter

[Basilisk]

Boxed in the MG 151 shell cartridge chutes.

 

I did cover them up and it now looks like that from the bottom.

Now it looks like there is some hardware beneath the opening.

 

Also added a wire around the engine (spark plug cable distributor ring) and on the control stick.

Compared to the old tool kit, the engine is very basic, but little will be seen on the finished model.

 

Also started to enhance some of the other parts. Here the undercarriage spring linkage.

Left modified, right kit part.

 

Next is painting the internals.

Cheers, Peter

[Valkyrie]

Really great attention to detail!! If your going to build a scale model, this is how I’d love to do it 

Good job!!

[Hewy]

Very good so far peter, lovley the cannon barrels look smashing