Dornier Do-17 Z-10 - camo question

[Ijineda]

As I am currently in the process of building Revell's (or actually ICM's) excellent Z-10 in 1/72, some questions about the paint scheme arose.

 

The instructions suggest two options, one with overall black, the other one in the standard 65/70/71 splinter camo. 

 

However, I did not find any reference material like photos for the splinter camo. Did such an aircraft actually exist?

 

Also, I believe the overall black paint scheme could be wrong or at least there could have been aircraft with the 70/71 splinter camo on top and black on the bottom, like here:

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/UYQJRh18yLt997Vg9

 

Any input highly appreciated!

Edited February 16, 2022 by Ijineda

[SafetyDad]

I've checked the Classic Publications volume on the Do 17 (Number 30) and it suggests that the all-black scheme is likely to have been used on the one or three Z-10s constructed. There's a rather fuzzy picture of a Z-7 accompanying this section. 

 

The Classic volume on the Nachtjagd contains this:

 

 

70/71/65 to my eyes. However this is a Spanner-Anlange aircraft, and quite likely a non-operational prototype, (judging by the fuselage coding) as opposed to the Kauz that I presume you are building?

 

A further look in my files reveals this

 

 

and this

 

 

To my regret, I have no record of the source of these photos - I will remove them if asked to do so.

 

So all-black here

 

HTH

 

SD

[Graham Boak]

The coding may just suggest pre-delivery: someone should be able to identify the individual aircraft from the code, but not me.

[Ijineda]

Many thanks for your valuable input. I am in fact building a Z-10 Kauz II, thus equipped with the Spanner tracking device. So the 65/70/71 did really exist. It seems more probable to me though that the aircraft was, at least initially, only partially oversprayed with black colour while the upper surfaces remained in 70/71. This drawing seems to confirm this theory (R4+LK).

 

 

Also, this kind of black overpainting was widely used with other aircrafts like the Ju-88 or He-111 during the BoB and also thereafter. So I will use black/70/71 in my build. 

 

[72modeler]

Overall black or not- that's going to be a very handsome Dornier! Can't wait to see the RFI photos!

Mike

[G.R.Morrison]

SafetyDad,

Your first photo was WNr.2867 "PF+DH", which served with the 2./NJG 2 before being damaged in Sept. 1941.  Repaired and passed along to several schools, eventually with the 2./NJG 101 in 1944

 

ljineda, 

The subject of your He 111 starboard side profile is taken from a daylight formation flight, and may or may not date from the Battle of Britain / Blitz era, but later.  KG 55's train-hunting 14.Staffel used similar treatment of the Kennung (letter 'E') and blackened areas. 

 

The Ju 88 from the 5./KG 54 was an A-5 (which actually predated the A-4).  The 'diagonal line' referred to in the caption was a KG 54 marking they had used on their earlier Heinkels, applied in the Gruppe color (in this case, red for II Gruppe).  The artist neglected to include it here.  They continued to use that marking into the Soviet campaign, but seem to have abandoned it when transferred to the Mediterranean.

 

Good luck with your project, GRM

 

[SafetyDad]

10 hours ago, G.R.Morrison said:

SafetyDad,

Your first photo was WNr.2867 "PF+DH", which served with the 2./NJG 2 before being damaged in Sept. 1941.  Repaired and passed along to several schools, eventually with the 2./NJG 101 in 1944

 

GRM

 

Thanks GRM - much appreciated!

 

SD

[Touvdal]

Build this kit some time ago, think alover black is correct.

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Jes

[SafetyDad]

An addition to my post above.

 

First the source for the pictures of the Do 17Z and the Ju 88s

 

 

Second, a clearer version of the pic of the crashed Z-10

 

 

Is this overall black? Nose top and nacelles seem to be - I did wonder if I could see a thin section of rear fuselage (above the code letters) in another colour(s) but I'm open to comment?

 

pic is from here

 

 

 

HTH

SD

[Touvdal]

I have done the Z-7 as well and that is not over all black but 70/71 on upper surface, and black lower.

 

http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2017/03/dornier-do-17-z-7-kauz-airfixowl-by-jes.html

 

Tekst of crashed planes is wrongly put as Z-10 but is a Z-7

 

 

Cheers

Jes

 

[expositor]

Not an expert, but like FalkeEins was a member of the sadly defunct LuftwaffeExperten forum.  If I remember correctly, Dornier's factory paint scheme drawings called for 72 and 73 colors for the majority of their planes with two toned upper surface camouflage, just as those Ju-88s used over water had their factory colors of 70 and 71 rather than the sea camou.  Obviously, this is moot if you're modeling a night fighter.

 

 

[Seahawk]

It's all a matter of interpretation.  I note that your argumentation seems to draw heavily on profiles published on the internet.  I am a fervent adherent of @Troy Smith's maxim along the lines of "never trust a profile without a supporting photo".  In this case there are only a limited number of photographs of the real thing: the best sources I have found are Griehl's Nightfighters Over the Reich (as already cited by @SafetyDad) and Chris Goss's Dornier 17 in Focus.  Firstly there is no doubt that there was a Do 17Z-10 (or a Do 17 modiefied to Do 17Z-10 standard) in 70/71/65 but the use of Stammkennzeichen rather than unit codes suggest a trials aircraft.  ISTR this is the second aircraft offered in the Revell boxing.  Beyond that, I can see nothing in any of the photos I have to indicate use of 70/71 on upper surfaces of predominantly black aircraft: everything can be explained, to my own satisfaction at least, by permutations of strong sunlight, exhaust stains, leading edge weathering and the like.  But nowadays everyone (including me!) fancies him/herself as a photo interpreter and clearly some of the Wings Palette crowd have come to different conclusions.  They may not have had access to or even cared about the information available on fora such as this one.  You will have to choose who you want to go with.  I shall be following my own maxim, "there are lies, damned lies and profile drawings" so I'm with @SafetyDadand @Touvdal: overall Black.

 

14 hours ago, expositor said:

If I remember correctly, Dornier's factory paint scheme drawings called for 72 and 73 colors for the majority of their planes with two toned upper surface camouflage, just as those Ju-88s used over water had their factory colors of 70 and 71 rather than the sea camouflage.

 

Certainly the factory paint scheme drawings for the Dorner 217 indicate the maritime 72/73 colours as default upper surface colours but I would be interested to see evidence that those colours were used on the Do 17 as well.

[Hook]

There's a pic of a Z-10 in what looks like RLM70/71/65 on p. 44 of the AirDoc book on the 17/215:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/books/dornier-do-17e-z-do-215b-world-war-ii-combat-aircraft-photo-archive-03-manfred-griehl--100692

 

Most likely this was the second RoG option, which was a test aircraft for the Spanner-Anlage IR sight.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[expositor]

Hi Seahawk, you're probably right about the -17, the only factory camou drawings I've seen are, as you found, for the -217.  Hollman has a color illustration of the 17 in 70/71 based on 'the' factory camou scheme, but no reproduction of said drawing, while such are provided for many other a/c.  Stammkenzeichen were also used

for ferry/delivery flights of new or refitted a/c to units as radio call signs, which often were never changed to the unit codes, especially later in the war.

Hook, it's almost impossible to distinguish 70/71 from 72/73 in b/a photos.  Even color photos can be just as hard, the differences are slight; just look at color cards in Merrick's works.  Though the former are more olive while the latter are more grey, they're still hard to distinguish in color 

 

Regards!

Jim

[expositor]

Man, spell check, edit....Must be me?

[Graham Boak]

As far as I've seen there's no evidence that Do.17s had 72/73 camouflage, nor indeed much reason to suppose they did.  Remember that the Do.217 began life as a specifically maritime attack aircraft rather than a general duties bomber, hence the call for 72/73.  The Do.17 was not used by units with a specific maritime role.  It's quite true that Junkers ignored the 72/73 scheme for their Ju88s, but then they ignored them for the Ju.52/3mWs too.  This seems to simply be a matter of reducing production costs.  Any colour you like as long as its 70/71/65.  Other companies, not owned by the Nazi Party, don't seem to have displayed the same freedom to ignore RLM rulings.

 

I'm also with the overall 22 black for a night fighter, at least in this period.  There seems to have been some relaxation of this later,  The first rule is if in doubt always go by the official colours unless there's very good known reason otherwise.

 

Is it not written that there are lies, damn lies, and Wings Palette profiles?

[Touvdal]

8 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

 

 

Is it not written that there are lies, damn lies, and Wings Palette profiles?

 

😀🤗

[ad astra]

On 2/20/2022 at 6:12 AM, Seahawk said:

Firstly there is no doubt that there was a Do 17Z-10 (or a Do 17 modiefied to Do 17Z-10 standard) in 70/71/65 but the use of Stammkennzeichen rather than unit codes suggest a trials aircraft.  ISTR this is the second aircraft offered in the Revell boxing.  Beyond that, I can see nothing in any of the photos I have to indicate use of 70/71 on upper surfaces of predominantly black aircraft: everything can be explained, to my own satisfaction at least, by permutations of strong sunlight, exhaust stains, leading edge weathering and the like. 

 

As covered in my recent blogpost, Early Dornier 17 Z Kauz, I have respectfully to disagree with Seahawk: the combination of 70/71 with black on Dornier 17Z Kauz is supported by photographic evidence, e.g. R4+DK, a G9+ marked aircraft, and potentially R4+ZK in case that was a Kauz and not a Do17Z-3. Whether is was applied to Kauz I and II is uncertain. We have proof for a Do17Z-7 Kauz I, but I have not come across a photo of a Do17Z-10 Kauz II that would support this scheme without doubt.

 

Kind regards, Mathias

[Giampiero Piva]

12 hours ago, ad astra said:

 

As covered in my recent blogpost, Early Dornier 17 Z Kauz, I have respectfully to disagree with Seahawk: the combination of 70/71 with black on Dornier 17Z Kauz is supported by photographic evidence, e.g. R4+DK, a G9+ marked aircraft, and potentially R4+ZK in case that was a Kauz and not a Do17Z-3. Whether is was applied to Kauz I and II is uncertain. We have proof for a Do17Z-7 Kauz I, but I have not come across a photo of a Do17Z-10 Kauz II that would support this scheme without doubt.

 

Kind regards, Mathias

Sorry Mathias, but 'R4+ZK' was a Z-3, not a Kauz. (source expired ebay)

Kind regarda

Giampiero

 

[Graham Boak]

Good view of the framework supporting the side guns at the rear of the cockpit, they stick out further than usually considered - which makes a lot of sense.  Now I know what to look for, I'll see them in many familiar photos, no doubt.  Also they operate through slits in the glazing, not a detail I'd noticed.  But what is the rod poking down from the nose?  It looks like a gun barrel, but I can't see any breech in the cockpit area.  It would be pretty useless there anyway, but large circular aerials are pretty draggy and what could it be for?.

[72modeler]

18 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

But what is the rod poking down from the nose? 

I think it's a drift sight. Standard equipment on a lot of WW2 bombers.

Mike

 

From Wikipedia:

A drift meter consists of a small telescope extended vertically through the bottom of the aircraft with the eyepiece inside the fuselage at the navigator's station. A reticle, normally consisting of spaced parallel lines, is rotated until objects on the ground are seen to be moving parallel to the vertical lines. The angle of the reticle then indicates the aircraft's drift angle due to winds aloft. It is also used to calculate the ground speed by measuring the time it takes for an object on the ground to pass from the upper to the lower horizontal line of the reticle.

[expositor]

On 2/21/2022 at 4:51 PM, Graham Boak said:

As far as I've seen there's no evidence that Do.17s had 72/73 camouflage, nor indeed much reason to suppose they did.  Remember that the Do.217 began life as a specifically maritime attack aircraft rather than a general duties bomber, hence the call for 72/73.  The Do.17 was not used by units with a specific maritime role.  It's quite true that Junkers ignored the 72/73 scheme for their Ju88s, but then they ignored them for the Ju.52/3mWs too.  This seems to simply be a matter of reducing production costs.  Any colour you like as long as its 70/71/65.  Other companies, not owned by the Nazi Party, don't seem to have displayed the same freedom to ignore RLM rulings.

 

Is it not written that there are lies, damn lies, and Wings Palette profiles?

Sorry for the belated post....GB, you're right about Junkers; so why couldn't that be the same for Dornier?  They were building all those seaplanes that needed 72 and 73 paint, colors which they would have, or should have had plenty of.  Much like Grumman using Willow Green markings color stocked for VF-4/41 F4Fs for USS Ranger on FAA Martlets which the BPC paid for, until they could procure the right paint....

 

Like the Wings Pallette comment!

[Graham Boak]

Dornier were however building many Do.17s for land-based units in 70/71 and maritime-dedicated types in 72/73, just as the RLM required.   There's no suggestion that the Do.17Z series were for maritime use, so there is no reason for Dornier to paint them in maritime colours.  The reason Junkers had more freedom from possible criticism is that they were owned by the Nazi Party.  With its external connections and independent stance, Dornier would need to be more scrupulous.

 

I have never heard of Willow Green being used on Martlets.  Quite the contrary, Grumman is renowned for sticking to UK colours, even given the distinctive  Mk.1s diverted from French contracts, where there appears to have been some misunderstanding in the British Purchasing Commission in Washington as to just what the FAA requirements were.  The colours seen these Martlets were not the lighter Willow Green.

[expositor]

You're right again about Junkers, but that doesn't mean that Dornier could not have used use green paints they had.  Hitler was concerned only with numbers, and green camouflage of slightly different shade used instead of otherc olors used by all the other manufacturers possibly bottlenecked in a frenzy to rearm would not have been that much of a problem.  If Goring didn't care, well he didn't about naval aviation, then it wasn't a big issue.  But hey, what do I know?  I'm just saying possible shortages result in changes, and 72/73i s not that different from 70/71.  But for us here?  No!

 

As to Grumman, many continue to make unequivocal statements about the colors they used in producing their planes for the BPC.  Grumman used...name the paint...until they didn't.  The restored Martlet in the FAA Museum is proof, and is clearly painted in Willow Green.  Heck, it's a gloss marking color; how many gloss greens would a USN contractor have stocked?  Occam's razor and all that.  Those planes were on the line with planes for the USN, and every American manufacturer had provision to not impede construction for their prime customer, the US gov't, so if they ran out of the agreed colors, they would use what they had to get the planes finished.  There were pics posted here years ago of a Grumman hanger with USN and RN planes painted in Grey Blue and Olive Drab like those pics of Corsair I's in New England; not the colors many have said were "only" used.  There was a disagreement here years ago between two experts about two underside colors on Corsairs; my humble opinion was/is they were both right.  But hey, what do I know? 

 

Sorry for the digression.

[Graham Boak]

Willow Green is lighter than the green on the Martlet, which is a good match for the official British colour Sea Green, which is what was being described in the US as the British Sea camouflage at the time.  I have peered closely at the Martlet.  Close equivalents to the British colours were readily available in the US,  I've certainly seen colour pictures of RN and USN  aircraft together in a Grumman Hangar, but the RN aircraft were in TSS colours: Grumman is well known for using the correct colour even after this had been relaxed..  Perhaps tis was a picture of the Eastern factory?

 

The question is not whether Dornier could have used 72/73, but why should they?  At this stage there is no suggestion of any shortage in one of the other sets.  I totally agree about Hitler having no interest in the colours: As I recall there's no mention of Churchill arguing over the underside colour of British fighters during the BoB.  Nor, similarly, Churchill, Stalin, nor Tojo..  They all had subordinates who had subordinates who had subordinates for that sort of thing.  And they would be responsible to their immediate superiors for the performance in areas within their control.  All the way down the line to stores clerks saying: they've sent the wrong colour, engineering officers querying whether they'd been sent the right aircraft, all people with a vested interest in getting things right, and a disciplinary procedure in place it they didn't.  I think some people nowadays don't realise how strictly organised and disciplined armed forces were - not least in the Third Reich.  Had any Do.17s been painted in 72/73 there would have to have been a reason.  At the moment it stands as a pure speculation, with no rounding: a What-If, if you like  OK, I speculate they were in 74/75., or in captured French Kaki and  Chocolate.   .