Jump to content

Dornier-17E/F ***FINISHED***


PeterB

Recommended Posts

Like the RAF, the Luftwaffe had 2 different official camo patterns, but the rules also allowed the switching of colours so for example, what was grey on one plane could be green or brown on another. I will be going for the standard A scheme as below.

offcam-crop

As you can see the grid squares are 31cm, Hoheitszeichen literally means "Sovereignty symbol" so National Insignia I guess, and Hauben Allseifig  is I presume "all over spinner".

 

I have a photo of the one I intend to model - 54+H39 and it matches scheme A colour-wise, whilst a pic of 54+A39 has the same pattern but different colours.

 

Pete

 

Update.

 

I think I may have been slightly mistaken about the camo pattern as Ullmann says they all had the same pattern and that scheme B differed from Scheme A only in the way the colours were allocated to each segment, though I still think I have read somewhere that there were different "patterns" as well. In fact Fleuret in his book says that whilst there was just one pattern it could be used in mirror image like the RAF ones, and with 3 colours to play with there were therefore 12 potential variations, but only 6 have been reported in regular use - as I have said many, many times before, the subject of paint schemes can be ruddy complicated!

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Mottlemaster said:

Fascinating metamorphoses of the striped down parts to the new creation . Its what modeling is all about .

 

cheers

Alistair 

By all accounts the standard grid was superimposed on a plan of a particular aircraft, and where necessary the grid square size was either increased or decreased to just about make it fit - German logic and order at its best I suppose! Shades of the GWR locomotive works at Swindon under George Jackson Churchward as CME, who introduced standardisation of parts and designs well before most if not all other UK railway companies.

 

Pete

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good few years ago I bought the White Ensign Colourcoats RLM 61/62 and 63 and I now at last have the chance to use them. However. as ever there is a bit of uncertainty over the precise colours used on this and other early planes it seems. When the Luftwaffe was first created a lot of its planes were of civilian origin and were painted in the same lightish grey colour, and sources vary a bit as to what that was. It seems likely to me from reading up on it that initially it was a commercial colour such as “Dr Kurt Herberts” L40/52 or Avianorm 7375, but from about 1936, maybe a little earlier, the RLM standard colours began to be available, though full standardisation on these did not come until instructions issued in1938. Both RLM02 and RLM 63 are cited as possible alternatives for later planes such as the He 51, and apparently original documentation adds to the confusion, resulting in some old sources saying that the last 2 colours were in fact the same. I think it is generally now accepted that they were different, and that both were slightly darker than Herberts L40/52, but as you can see, the RLM 63 which I have put on does resemble RLM 02 as supplied by some model paint manufacturers.

 

DSC06888-crop

Considering this was commonly called Lichtgrau or Hellgrau it is far darker than I expected, but then another name was Grungrau. As to other paint manufacturers their versions range from a light grey like Enzo has used to something like this Colourcoats paint so “you pays your money and takes your pick” as the old saying goes. Once the other colours go on it may look a bit lighter as at the moment is is contrasted with the very pale blue plastic. Rather than putting another coat on all over, I will wait for this to dry as it is enamel and could take a while. Then I will mask and start on the green and brown.

 

Then there is the problem with RLM 65, which seems to have changed colour – Ullmann dates the change to 1941. I remember that the original Humbrol Authentic version was quite close in appearance to their Hu65, but later tins were toned down a bit – less yellow or maybe more white. Mind you the same happened with their RLM 71 as I recall, which was quite yellowish at first then was dulled down, so whether the changes were intentional or just due to inconsistency on the part of Humbrol I have no idea. I know that the Gunze RLM65 looks like the later version to me, whereas the Xracrylic one may be somewhere between the two extremes, but as this is an early plane (1937) I may just use Hu65. I will have to think about that.

 

Pete

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short answer to this is that the colour RLM63 fades rapidly from its true greenish shade - very close to RLM02 (which at this time was for interiors only) - into something resembling the various civil "pure" light greys.  Certainly as far as photographs are concerned.  As you say, L.40/52 Hellgrau is the most familiar of these.  The best evidence of this that I've found was in photos of early He.111s in the Condor Legion, both in Patrick Laureau's (sp?) book for Hikoki and the Modeldoc booklet on early He.111s.  Nice clear photos of new aircraft appear distinctly darker than ones of the same aircraft after a short time in service.  You can see the same effect on some Ju.52 photos.

 

The longer answer is that this was a matter of controversy for some time: I believe it was at least one reason by Ken Merrick and Geoff Pentland parted company after Kookaburra Luftwaffe Colours Volume 1.  Which at least has the merit of an eventual entirely new replacement volume.  After the later identification of the greenish tinge I recall asking on the Luftwaffe website if there was any contemporary evidence in the way of actual paintings of these aircraft, following the logic that artists have a sharper eye for colours than the rest of us, and the (sadly, only) result was a posting of a field of early Heinkels (He.46s?) showing this green.  There is a lot more to be said on the subject, and I feel that the Colourcoats offering is indeed somewhat too intense, but the green should be there on freshly painted aircraft

 

I believe that the same excess colour saturation applies to many model paints, but specifically in this contest to representations of RLM 02, which almost always appears much lighter in photographs than from the time (or on the paint chip) without the natural excuse of a blue component in the paint.  It seems to me that most modellers are happy to go with that, mainly with their models in "ex-factory" condition.  However heavily-used/weathered models just look wrong unless the colours are faded, and in this specific case use of an unmodified light grey is really calling for a somewhat washed-out reddish-brown and green to go with it.  However the used appearance of these paints is not so readily available.

 

I haven't seen any suggestion that the 61/62/63 was in any way not standardised and enforced from very early days of the Luftwaffe's official existence, but can see how the confusion between the civil colour and the military one can hint at such a state of affairs.  The 1938 standardisation was for both a new paint formulation and the use of new colours (70/71, basically) using these colours with new standard patterns involving fewer segments than the complicated 61/62/63 designs with its six options.  For fuller details see particularly Uhlmann's book for Hikoki, but you'll also find it in the Merrick books for Classic.  The new standard brought 02 into use as an exterior colour. 

 

Incidentally, there does appear to be a comparatively short-lived intermediate scheme, but examples of these are rare - Portuguese Ju.52s, Romanian He.111H-3s, and views of (a handful of?) Luftwaffe He.111Ps.  But that is (perhaps!) straying beyond the use of RLM 63.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Graham,

 

I have both Merrick and Ullmann and I agree with what you say, though I was not aware that it faded so much which explains a lot. This will be a new plane, but depending on how it looks when the green and brown are on, I may lighten the Colourcoats 63 slightly.

 

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The three colour splinter pattern is pretty complicated and would be a pain to mask with tape so I am going to try an experiment. Some of you will have seen modellers blowing up the kit instructions, printing them out and using them as paper masks, however a few years back I saw somebody in a magazine using frisket film. This is a clear sheet with low tac adhesive on the back. In theory you can print directly on to it but when I tried I found that the ink did not dry very well, so instead I flipped the design and printed it on the reverse of the backing paper. I then used a scalpel to cut it out and in theory I should be able to stick the resulting masks on to the kit. My one and only previous attempt half worked but I had problems lining it up properly. I bought it with my larger kits in mind such as the Ju 290 but I will try it on the Do 17 and see how I get on.

DSC06897-crop

Probably won't work but worth a try.

 

Pete

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that doesn't work, another option could be the transfer paper used on vinyl graphics (as I had a go at having my own graphics business a few years back). Very much like a thinner and stronger masking tape, but with less tack. Available in a range of widths, and generally semi-transparent like baking paper is. You probably wouldn't have much luck running it through a printer, but if you've got the plan printed to scale and a decent sized bit of clear plastic you could lay over it, you'd probably be able to see through the masking enough to draw it out on the back.

 

James

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first time I used frisket was to paint the red stripes on the wings of a cream coloured SM81, and I had problems aligning it so by the time it was finally in place the adhesive had lost its stick and I got paint creep. This could be a bit easier as it will be like a jigsaw in many ways once the big centre patch is in place, and the alignment is not quite as critical. I will give the paint another day to dry properly and them we will see,

 

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that was only a partial success, The film does not like contours so it would not stick down as well as normal masking tape and I have quite a bit of bleed through in places. Part of the problem was my decision to cut the "shapes" out on the backing paper, thinking I could them assemble them on the model like a jigsaw - it proved impossible top line them up, bit like those ruddy screen protectors you get for phones and tablets. You get it right in one place then find it is out elsewhere and by the time I had finished sticking, pulling off and trying again I suspect some of them became stretched/distorted. If I try this again I think I will copy the pattern onto the film itself using a pencil, cut out a strip bigger than the wing and try and put that on intact before cutting out on the kit, though I suspect that too will be a problem - maybe I should have gone with paper masks after all.

 

DSC06914-crop

Anyway it has given me something to work with and given that I am using relatively slow drying enamel paints I will no doubt spend the next week or so cleaning up and straightening the lines. On the plus side, the RLM62 grey looks a bit lighter in real life when contrasted with the green and brown so I may just leave it alone, this being a virtually brand new machine that I will be modelling. Incidentally I have not done the fuselage yet! At least this will be the only one I do with a 3 colour splinter I suspect!

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame about the bleed, but the colours do look good, Pete. Good luck with the fixes!

 

James

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kit was released in I think 1972 and a number of modellers have commented that it seems in some respects rather better than they would expect for an Airfix kit of that period. I agree and it seems that somebody did some pretty good research at the time as the splinter pattern is almost a perfect match for the one I showed you earlier - there is just one small triangular wedge on the starboard leading edge missing. Their bomber version is apparently based on the one to the left in the picture linked below - 54+A39.

https://flic.kr/p/2nw92Na

That had a version of the splinter where green and grey were swapped round, which Airfix have got right, but they have messed up the colours on the rear fuselage on their painting diagram and included a couple of large "A"s in the decs to go on top and below the fuselage around the wing centre which I cannot see in the pic. They have also not provided the Edelweiss badge of III/KG.255 aka Alpine Geschwader though it may be that it had not yet been painted on when the pic was taken in 1937. Although virtually brand new, the B&W photo seems to show that the RLM 63 had faded already! I will be building mine as 54+H39 which had the pattern A scheme of colouring and is the aircraft on the right of the pic.

 

They do, however seem to have been a bit confused with the markings for the Recce F version as they say it is in 1937 but show the later type of codes. Initially, when the Luftwaffe was first revealed to the public,  they set up a series of regional “Luftkreiscommandos” or Luftktreis for short and this was a plane of the 4th Geschwader in Luftkreis V based at Munich, so that explains the 54 to the left of the cross. The individual aircraft letter H is from the 9th Staffel and therefore part of III Gruppe, hence the 39. Later the more familiar 4 digit codes were introduced around 1939 and the G2+BH (the B is white) was I believe a plane of 1.(F)/124 which seems to have taken part in the Polish campaign in 1939 still in the old 3 colour camo. If I had known that when I first built the kit I would not have built it in 70/71 but my sources have improved a lot since then - also I had though only the later 17P/M were in use by that date so I was at one time considering converting it to radial engines!

 

So, on with the touching up, which has not been as bad as I thought.

DSC06918-crop

Still a bit to do, particularly on the tail, but I may have the blue underside done before the end of the week, and then it will be decals time. Slightly gloomy late afternoon when I took the above, but natural light gives a better idea of the colours - I think I can live with the grey. This is a faked up Black and White version.

b&w

Of course it would all depend on the lighting and emulsion.

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have put on a coat of Hu65 and am debating whether or not to stick with it or just use it as a primer for the Xtracrylic RLM65 - it is maybe just a bit too bright!

DSC06924-crop

I have also glued the rails on to the aerial under the belly and have "carved" a replacement for the long aerial that goes in the hole you can see alongside the ventral gun position. 

 

Earlier I mentioned the problem choosing the correct canopy - Airfix provided the original symmetrical one without a gun which they said was for the F recce version and the modified one with a gun for the E bomber. They also provided the inner and outer parts of the bombsight for the E. I must have got confused as I used the "F" canopy but fitted the bombsight so those are the parts I have, but I also have the Falcon set with the revised canopy. I think that as this is a very early E I will use the kit canopy without a gun, but it seems I will also have to add what I suspect is a mast for the pitot tube that the early ones had at the front of the canopy above the windscreen. Later ones dispensed with this, probably in favour of a pitot tube under the port wing as on the Do 17Z. OF course, the F did not have a bomb sight but did have a series of windows under the belly for cameras which Airfix did not provide!

 

With luck I could be putting decs on by the weekend so I suppose I had better print some off soon.

 

Oh, and incidentally, contrary to what I said earlier it seem the tailwheel did in fact partially retract!

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 81-er said:

She's looking smart, Pete. Nice job on the paint fixes :)

 

James

Thanks James. Just to complete my rant lecture comment on the camo pattern, apparently, according to my book by Ullmann, the idea was that the same pattern would be used on all planes that were painted in the 3 colour uppers scheme, with the grid sizes adjusted to fit. In reality it seems the placement of the pattern varied a bit so it could be slightly further forwards or backwards, and on planes like the He 111 the rear fuselage pattern was adjusted a bit due to the shape, or so he says. Now that really is standardisation!

 

Pete

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the Germans are known for their efficiancy, but a "one size fits all" camo really is taking it to another level! I certainly wouldn't want to be the painter who had to make the Do 17 scheme fit the He 111...

 

James

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 81-er said:

I know the Germans are known for their efficiancy, but a "one size fits all" camo really is taking it to another level! I certainly wouldn't want to be the painter who had to make the Do 17 scheme fit the He 111...

 

James

Well that is what they did James.

111-crop

At first sight it is not obvious that they are basically the same, because they seem to have moved the pattern forward by about half the wing chord so the front part of the 111 wing corresponds with the rear half of the pattern on the wing of the Do-17! If you look at the brown patch behind the cockpit you can see what I mean if you compare it with this.

DSC06930-crop

Anyway, I did not get too much done yesterday as I had to go shopping with my wife for her birthday present from me – one hour travelling, a bit more walking about, and rather longer stood in shops like a spare part whilst she looked at clothes, shoes etc – all the things the ladies like. My failing knees took a bit of a pounding and I am stiff today, and I found the heat a problem. Having lived the early part of my life 1000ft up the Pennines in a non centrally heated house I cope quite well with cold, but heat is difficult for me, particularly since I developed chest problems. Oh well, she's worth a bit of discomfort!

 

I did make some progress with the touching up, and have now finished it off, and also sorted out the landing light in the Port wing leading edge – I could swear I managed to find it but it has gone missing now so I used some very thick Krystal Kleer from an ancient bottle I keep for just that sort of thing. I also finished off the DIY decs and managed to clean up most of the nose glazing which had old glue on it, so I may not have to use the Falcon bits after all.  I have given it a gloss coat and will make a start on the decs.

 

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pattern is available for a number of aircraft types, ranging in size from the Ju.52 to the Hs.123.  The same principle was carried over to the later 70/71 scheme, and indeed to a briefly-appearing interim pattern.  However as far as the painter was concerned, he had a simple set of straight lines going to specific points on the airframe, that would have been simple to mark out (perhaps with chalked string, a technique still employed nowadays).

 

Although the method implied six possibilities of camouflage, it seems that not more than two were ever selected, and perhaps each factory only had one in use.  Little different in principle that RAF patterns, which allowed for four variations but only two were officially presented, and after the earliest years the factories reverted to only one - although not the same one!  However, individual variations did appear and it would seem reasonable to assume the same for the Luftwaffe, though I can't think of any such cases.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

 

 

Although the method implied six possibilities of camouflage, it seems that not more than two were ever selected, and perhaps each factory only had one in use. 

Thanks Graham. As the photos I put a link up for earlier show, the Do-17 certainly had at least two versions of the same pattern with the colours swapped round.

 

Pete

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decs are all on except for the badges which I am still working on. OK, I know some modellers don't like putting swastikas on their Luftwaffe kits, and I fully understand why, but the fact is that it was carried on Luftwaffe planes and for the sake of accuracy I always put them on, so I apologise if it upsets anybody.

 

DSC06934-crop

 Earlier I mentioned that Airfix provided large letter "A"s for the individual aircraft markings which they said went on the centreline above and below the fuselage, and I said I had not seen any photographic evidence for them. Well that remains the case for the upper surfaces, perhaps due to camera angle or lighting, but I have found one pic showing such a letter underneath, but it did not look all that big, so I used the same size as the rest of the wing lettering, both above and below. Once the badges are on I will make a start on the rest of the glazing, guns and aerials - the props are already repaired and painted.

 

Barring mishaps I think it should just squeeze in before the deadline. Incidentally, the fuselage crosses are perhaps a little too far back but that was the only way I could get the codes on the starboard side without having problems with the extended wing fillet - you will no doubt see what I mean in later pics.

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I decided to be a bit lazy as I am both physically and perhaps mentally tired! As I mentioned earlier, I don't cope well with the current heat hence the physical aspect. As to the mental one, nearly all the GB I am interested in were  compressed into the first half of the year so I have been building virtually non stop for 6 months and need a break - and my wife wants me to help her decorate!

 

Falcon canopies are pretty good, particularly when they are actually meant for the kit you are building, but as I mentioned earlier I am using the kit canopy as this is the very early version. The other parts cleaned up quite well, though they are not as clear as the Falcon ones should be assuming I did not end up smearing glue on them, and maybe I will use them at a later date, but I have used the kit ones at least initially. Unusually for Airfix at that time they not only included the exterior bulge for the bomb sight but also the interior "box" as well, so I glued them in place then closed the nose up. I also added the ventral gun (it is there - honest) and aerial mast.

DSC06936-crop

I noticed on photos that there was a dark/black band under the engine just behind the intake - not sure what it is, perhaps some sort of vent, so I represented that with a strip of black decal. One thing that strikes me is just how shallow the front fuselage is – I have no idea how accurate the kit is but even under the canopy the depth scales out at only an inch or two over 5ft externally, so allowing for skin thickness and the floor than the crew must have had to move about almost bent double – small wonder then that it was decided to deepen the nose on the Do 17Z. For the navigator/bomb aimer to use the MG fitted later in the windscreen must have been uncomfortable as he would have to stand bent at the knee it seems, unless his sliding seat meant he could operate it sitting down which is in fact a possibility! Here it is with my Frog Z for comparison.

DSC06939-crop

As I mentioned earlier, either I have made the u/c a couple of mil too long or the wheels are a bit big. I have since glued the props on so all that is left is the dorsal gun position and the two masts.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited by PeterB
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • PeterB changed the title to Dornier-17E/F - Nearly there!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...