Heinkel He 177A-5 Greif.

[PeterB]

Back in 1967 Airfix released a new Series 5 kit of this rather ill fated aircraft. At the time I had just gone to Uni so my modelling was cut back severely but a few years later, probably somewhere between 1969 and 1971, I was driving through Queensbury up the hill from my home, and saw a shop I had not noticed previously, which had kits in the window. I was unable to stop at the time, but the following day I got on my push bike and paid it a visit, coming back with this kit-

 

 

This is actually the 1990 final reboxing which I bought around 20 years ago but with the exception of the slightly earlier box with a pic of the kit on it, all the other boxings like this one had the original Roy Cross artwork on them, though doctored in some cases. I know the much later Revell offering is said to be more accurate but as this is the last Luftwaffe plane in my stash I thought I might give it a try, though whether or not I finish it remains to be seen. I actually have the Falcon replacement glazing set somewhere so that may just come into play as well.

 

A lot has been written about this plane which most consider a failure with some justification but as I hope to show later, the concept was sound but was let down by bad engineering in some critical areas, probably combined with some highly suspect policy decisions from the RLM. On paper, when everything worked (which was rare at first) the 177 could carry up to 6 x 2250lb  bombs over 750miles range, or more often a smaller bomb load and more fuel with ranges from 1500 to 3000 miles, and had a top speed of over 300 mph, but as with the Rolls Royce Vultures in the Avro Manchester, the coupled engines were prone to failing and/or catching fire, but more on that another time. In a way, the failure to get the 177 into reliable service did the allies a considerable favour - not only was it not available as intended for long range maritime recce work in support of the U Boats, thus requiring the Fw 200 airliner to be pressed into service in a role it was not really suited for, but the prolonged gestation of the 177 left the Luftwaffe without a strategic bomber and they never really looked at another design as they continued to hope the 177 would soon become good, but again I will no doubt ramble on about that during the build. Before anybody else says it, yes I know that they blew hot and cold about the concept anyway, with Goering insisting that Hitler would rather have 3 medium bombers instead of 2 larger ones for the same price or whatever, and that initially they had no obvious need for a strategic bomber as they thought Britain would surrender, but if a fully operational He 177 had entered service as intended in 1940/41 then things might have been rather different, particularly in Russia where the existing bombers did not have adequate range once the Soviets removed their factories to the Urals.

 

That's enough for now.

 

Pete

Edited August 10 by PeterB

[AdrianMF]

Looking forward to this one!

 

Regards,

Adrian

[PeterB]

When first introduced, Series 5 kits cost all of 7/6 (37.5p) though by the time the 177 appeared they may have cost a little more, so what did you get for your money?

 

 

 

The decs are decidedly "iffy" - solid black crosses with a very thin white outline and a dubious set of letters. Airfix never said which unit they thought it was but K9 is I believe one of the recce ones and surely the "N" is the one that should be in the staffel colour, not the 9? The kit comes with both bombs for the bomb bay and up to 3 Hs 293 missiles, so I am considering either a maritime strike aircraft from KG 40 or a night bomber from KG 100 in Operation Steinbock.

 

Before I start on a bit of background, a couple of corrections to my earlier post. I mentioned that the delays with the Grief caused the Fw 200 Condor to be introduced as a stop gap, which I believe is partly true, but the fact that Hitler went to war earlier than his military had expected was another factor. Also, even if the plane had been operational in time, there must be some doubts over whether or not Goering would have released any of "his" air force planes for maritime recce based on his attitude towards the Kriegsmarine, which was similar to that of Arthur Harris towards Coastal Command. Also, I said that the Luftwaffe did not look at any other strategic bombers but it could be argued that the later spec for the "Bomber B" was for such a plane, the requirements being similar to the "Bomber A" spec but rather faster. Of course none of the planes offered for the Bomber B requirement ever really got into service either.

 

OK, this is going to be another of my long rambling rants lectures discourses for which I apologize in advance – of course you don't have to read it if you know it already! However, although much of the story is well known, a lot of the written information/opinion is old and I hope to cast a little new light on the saga. I am as ever open to any feedback/new information of a constructive nature.

 

When Hitler started to build up the Luftwaffe the initial emphasis was on tactical support for the Wehrmacht, and this resulted in bombers with a relatively small payload and short range such as the Do-17, Ju 88 and He 111 which were more than adequate until the Battle of Britain and later the invasion of Russia, when their lack of range and hitting power became obvious. Some elements in the Luftwaffe had anticipated this problem and this resulted in 2 new designs of 4 engined bombers – sometimes unofficially named Ural Bombers, rather prophetically as it turned out. Initiated in around 1934, the Do 19 and Ju 89 first flew in 1936. Neither of the two planes were particularly impressive, the Do 19 for example being intended on paper to carry up to 16 x 220lb bombs or equivalent for a maximum range of about 1000 miles with a max speed of around 190 mph, whilst the Ju 89 could carry a similar payload a little further and faster.

 

It has often been claimed that following the death in a plane crash of their main supporter General Wever, interest waned but Green thinks that unlikely. The idea was clearly not forgotten because, as it seemed that both the previously mentioned bombers would have inadequate performance, a new requirement was issued in 1936 for the so called “Bomber A” and in 1937 Heinkel were ordered to proceed with their 177 design. The Bomber A specification was for a machine capable of carrying a load of at least 2000lb over a range of 4160 miles with a top speed of no less than 335 mph and it had to be strong enough to carry out “medium angle dive bombing attacks”, and frankly was rather over-optimistic in terms of performance and the dive bombing requirement was to cause major problems. During the early 1930's, dive bombing was popular with the US Army and Navy, and it is sometimes said that whilst touring the US as a stunt pilot Ernst Udet was impressed enough to push for similar planes on his return to Germany – in fact I have read that Goering offered to buy him two Curtis Hawks if he would join the Nazi Party in 1933. Whatever the case it certainly caught on in the Luftwaffe and initially proved to be the most accurate way of delivering bombs, though as shown in the Battle of Britain it was not as good when faced with determined opposition. Using Hs 123 and Ju 87 as dive bombers was fair enough, and it seemed to work quite well on the bigger Ju 88, but there were major problems with the Do 217, and expecting the even larger He 177 to operate in that mode, even at a relatively shallow angle was probably unreasonable. In order to meet the requirement Heinkel had to make the whole structure stronger and therefore heavier, which in turn reduced the speed, payload and range, and perhaps more importantly put an increased strain on the engines which were already unreliable.

 

More next time.😄

 

Pete

[Zephyr91]

Nice subject and write up, if I may say so.    I first came across this aircraft when, many moons ago, I got a second-hand copy of the "Pictorial History of the Luftwaffe" by Alfred Price (ISBN: 9780668021449) first published in 1969. 

 

I'm sure there are now available more definitive descriptions of the subject , but it was a concise introduction to Hitler's airforce and had many photo's I'd not previously seen.  As well as tantalisingly brief descriptions of aircraft like the He 177, it also went into leading personalties and early organisational issues about which I'd not known.

 

There is an in-flight shot of a Greif with a single Hs 293 being carried.  It might be the one upon which one of the kit decal options are based and which is also here https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/material/aviation/heinkel-177/

(although the linked item looks to be enhanced by comparison to the book). 

 

Despite being interested in Luftwaffe subjects, I sold 2 copies (different boxing to yours) of this Airfix kit last year on evilbay.  I just don't have the space to store completed "big" 'planes , and the proceeds helped me get an airbrush and compressor - which improved my general paint finishing almost instantly! 

 

Wishing you well with this build

 

cheers

 

Rob   (seated near the back)

[PeterB]

Hi Rob,

 

Yes it certainly looks like the same plane - pity it does not say what unit it was.

 

Anyway, I have made a start.

 

The phantom riveter has been at it - although they are somewhat more subdued than on say the old Frog Shackleton I will probably sand them down a bit. The interior is very basic - just what you see above plus 3 figures and seats and a stick up front. These are the Airfix instructions-

 

 

And here are the Revell ones for their much better version.

 

 

 

Given the amount of glazing I will have to do quite a lot of work. The real thing was unusual in that it did not have an IP as such, just side panels and overhead ones something like this apparently.

 

 

The late Do-217 were similar as perhaps the Ju 188. Although early versions were perhaps painted RLM 02 inside, I would imagine the A-5 would have been RLM 66.

 

Anyway on with the story.

 

Rather than proceed chronologically, it perhaps makes more sense in this case to talk about the engines next as they were the main “Achilles Heel” of the Greif (Griffon). The more engines you stick on the wing, the more weight and drag you create – at least in theory, so instead of going for 4 normal engines, both Avro and Heinkel decided to go down a twin engined route. However, as there were no sufficiently powerful “normal engines” available for the Manchester and 177 they both opted for untried “double engines”, namely the R-R Vulture and DB 606, and both had serious problems as we know. Avro fairly quickly opted to go for a modified 4 Merlin design (Lancaster) as R-R did not want to spend time sorting the Vulture, being too busy with the Merlin and Griffon development, which would soon be generating as much power as the Vulture anyway. Heinkel however persisted, though they did suggest a conventional 4 engined version as early as 1940. For whatever reason the Technischen Amt of the RLM refused permission – Green suggests that at that early stage they felt the problems would be overcome and that they did not want production to be suspended whilst a new version was introduced. However, their continued refusal not only to switch designs, but even to allow a pause for serious remedial action to be taken beggars belief. Even when they did finally consent the change had to be hidden from Hitler, though Heinkel continued design work under the cover name Heinkel 177B. 3 prototypes of the 277 as it was later called flew in 1944, and permission was finally granted, but only a small number of production models were build before production of all bombers was stopped in 1945, and probably only 2 or 3 actually flew. The performance of the modified plane was nearly up to the original Bomber A spec!

 

The DB 606 consisted of 2 DB 601 inverted V 12 liquid cooled engines mounted side by side as shown in this overhead view.

 

 

The later models used the DB 610 made up of a pair of DB 605 as shown here courtesy of Wiki.

 

 

This is a front view and actually looks quite neat.

 

They drove the prop through a common gearbox and the composite engines were “handed” so the Port prop turned clockwise and the Starboard anti-clockwise. The 606 generated about 2100HP and the 610 around 2700HP so they were much more powerful than the R-R Vulture. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the engines themselves as was proved later, but the installation was a real mess. To save weight and space they were shoe-horned into tight fitting cowlings with all the related services for fuel, oil and electricals squeezed in, and no firewall was fitted – engineers at the Rechlin test centre called the installation of the 606 a “sardine can”. During testing of the He 177A-02 pre-production prototype it was already clear that changes were needed. The two engines shared a central exhaust manifold which got very hot and could cause any accumulated oil and grease in the cowling to catch fire. To make matters worse, when the pilot throttled the engines back the fuel injector pump produced excess fuel, and the pipe joints tended to leak. Throw in a lubricating system where the oil tended to foam at high altitudes and the oil return pump was too large anyway, and lubrication became inadequate causing the connecting rod bearings to disintegrate. The net result was a firebomb waiting to explode.

 

Suggested changes were to extend the engine mountings forward by 8 inches creating more space, moving the oil tank away from the engine, putting in a firewall and modifying the exhaust, fuel and oil systems but with the RLM refusing to allow any delays in production, Heinkel kept putting off the changes. The oil tank was moved on the A-1, and when crews demanded flame dampers for night work, the exhaust system was modified, and when the A-3 started production the engine mounts were lengthened, so things did improve somewhat, but the engines remained suspect. In 1943, Rechlin were given a Greif to play with and identified no less than 56 problems. Once all of these were addressed the engines performed flawlessly it seems. If a short delay in production had been allowed earlier to resolve the problems. who knows what might have happened.

 

So that covers the main problems with the 177. Next time I will cover the actual development of the plane itself.

 

Pete

 

 

 

Edited August 12 by PeterB

[Graham Boak]

As I recall, the kit has the dorsal gunner seated behind the fuselage bulkhead in a fuel tank.  Memory may be playing tricks, but I did play about a bit with mine based on what the Revell kit provided.

 

What you are seeing and reading as a code is likely to be the four letter factory/radio call sign (retained as the aircraft's true identity in service) with a unit number 9 painted on top.  This would be fairly common with a test unit.

 

I would also discount the service carriage of three Hs293s, as with Revell's even more impressive (and unlikely) two Fritz X.  It would after all be expected to get into the air and (if successful)  fly some considerable distance.

[PeterB]

Thanks Graham,

 

That makes sense of the markings if they were stammkennzeichen and I agree about the payload. I will be modifying the layout of the interior seating myself and no doubt scratching the actual seats, as well as creating crude representations of the consoles.

 

Pete

Edited August 11 by PeterB

[John]

10/6 for a Series 5 kit by the time I was old enough to notice, definitely birthdays and Christmases only 😀

John 

[PeterB]

37 minutes ago, John said:

10/6 for a Series 5 kit by the time I was old enough to notice, definitely birthdays and Christmases only 😀

John 

Yep,

 

That was how I got my first few Series 4, 5 and 6 kits as 6/-, 7/6 and 10/6 would have been a real stretch on my pocket money, but I did splash out 12/6 for the B-29 when that came out.😄 I find it quite sobering to look at my old 1970/1980 magazine adverts and see the prices back then compared with today!

 

Pete

Edited August 11 by PeterB

[JOCKNEY]

Inspired choice Pete 

 

Cheers Pat 

[Adrian Hills]

I have only made this kit once (one of my favourite aircraft). AFTER putting it on a table at a model contest in Trenton, Ontario I was told my interpretation of the tank busting 'Stalingrad gud' was wrong. My friend had an image of an actual aircraft all the while that I was building it at the club!

 

There are lots of 'dots'. I use a combination of Stanley knife and emery paper to remove them. Good Luck 😊

[Olmec Head]

On 10/08/2024 at 22:59, PeterB said:

Back in 1967 Airfix released a new Series 5 kit of this rather ill fated aircraft. At the time I had just gone to Uni so my modelling was cut back severely but a few years later, probably somewhere between 1969 and 1971, I was driving through Queensbury up the hill from my home, and saw a shop I had not noticed previously, which had kits in the window. I was unable to stop at the time, but the following day I got on my push bike and paid it a visit, coming back with this kit-

 

 

This is actually the 1990 final reboxing which I bought around 20 years ago but with the exception of the slightly earlier box with a pic of the kit on it, all the other boxings like this one had the original Roy Cross artwork on them, though doctored in some cases. I know the much later Revell offering is said to be more accurate but as this is the last Luftwaffe plane in my stash I thought I might give it a try, though whether or not I finish it remains to be seen. I actually have the Falcon replacement glazing set somewhere so that may just come into play as well.

 

A lot has been written about this plane which most consider a failure with some justification but as I hope to show later, the concept was sound but was let down by bad engineering in some critical areas, probably combined with some highly suspect policy decisions from the RLM. On paper, when everything worked (which was rare at first) the 177 could carry up to 6 x 2250lb  bombs over 750miles range, or more often a smaller bomb load and more fuel with ranges from 1500 to 3000 miles, and had a top speed of over 300 mph, but as with the Rolls Royce Vultures in the Avro Manchester, the coupled engines were prone to failing and/or catching fire, but more on that another time. In a way, the failure to get the 177 into reliable service did the allies a considerable favour - not only was it not available as intended for long range maritime recce work in support of the U Boats, thus requiring the Fw 200 airliner to be pressed into service in a role it was not really suited for, but the prolonged gestation of the 177 left the Luftwaffe without a strategic bomber and they never really looked at another design as they continued to hope the 177 would soon become good, but again I will no doubt ramble on about that during the build. Before anybody else says it, yes I know that they blew hot and cold about the concept anyway, with Goering insisting that Hitler would rather have 3 medium bombers instead of 2 larger ones for the same price or whatever, and that initially they had no obvious need for a strategic bomber as they thought Britain would surrender, but if a fully operational He 177 had entered service as intended in 1940/41 then things might have been rather different, particularly in Russia where the existing bombers did not have adequate range once the Soviets removed their factories to the Urals.

 

That's enough for now.

 

Pete

Again Pete, another Airfix model that I wanted back in the 1970s (like the Vigilante), but we could not afford.  Another excellent example of Airfix art work, presumably Roy Cross.  I don;t imagine it will be a simple build however.

[PeterB]

1 hour ago, Olmec Head said:

Again Pete, another Airfix model that I wanted back in the 1970s (like the Vigilante), but we could not afford.  Another excellent example of Airfix art work, presumably Roy Cross.  I don;t imagine it will be a simple build however.

There were I believe 6 UK boxings, 5 of which had Roy Cross artwork and one a pic of the built up model. Two of them had the "modified" Cross artwork for some reason with a new "background". I don't expect many major problems, but last time I built it wheels up so I have no idea how the split undercarriage will fit. Otherwise the main difficulties will be making the interior of the nose section look a bit more like the real thing. The gun barrels are a bit crude and I may have to consider replacing them, though I probably will not bother. Other than that I suspect the biggest problem will be painting it as I am not very good at mottling or Wellenmuster.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

On 8/11/2024 at 6:29 PM, Graham Boak said:

As I recall, the kit has the dorsal gunner seated behind the fuselage bulkhead in a fuel tank.  Memory may be playing tricks, but I did play about a bit with mine based on what the Revell kit provided.

 

What you are seeing and reading as a code is likely to be the four letter factory/radio call sign (retained as the aircraft's true identity in service) with a unit number 9 painted on top.  This would be fairly common with a test unit.

 

I would also discount the service carriage of three Hs293s, as with Revell's even more impressive (and unlikely) two Fritz X.  It would after all be expected to get into the air and (if successful)  fly some considerable distance.

I have been reading the AirDoc book on the 177 by Manfred Griehl and he gives some figures for loadout of the A-1. Short range 8800 litres of fuel and 7000kg bombs, medium range 10730 litres and 4000kg and long range 12660 litres and 1000 kg. He also says 3 Hs 293/Fritz X could be carried on the A-3/5 though I would guess they were not all fitted that often, and then only at the expense of fuel. Incidentally he also says that the DB 606 was made up of 2 DB603, not DB 601, but other sources do not agree so it may be a typo!

 

Anyway, I have made a bit more progress on the cockpit interior. The 177 carried a crew of 6, 4 in the front - pilot, navigator/bomb aimer/radio operator (who also controlled the C1 stand remote barbette when fitted but more on that another time) and the ventral gondola gunner. One feature of this type of German cockpit was usually a hole in the floor for access to the gondola, and in this case also the crew access hatch, so I made one. Probably the wrong shape and size but better than nothing. I also raised up the rear floor as these cockpits were often on different levels, and fitted a bulkhead and radio. I also dug around in my scrap boxes and found some seats that I could convert.

 

 

I have based the seats on the Revell ones, but not slavishly - the curious seat/chaise longue/couch for the navigator seems to have been mounted on runners so it could be moved back to slightly behind the pilot or forwards to the bomb sight, and Revell mounted theirs on a open frame but I went for solid frames. Next up the side consoles and panels. Incidentally the pilot's armoured "armchair" only had an arm on the right it seems. I may have made it a bit too high but we will see. I think they look better that the kits ones shown unpainted in the above pic I ran out of RLM66 so used a substitute - may be a bit light.

 

Pete

Edited August 12 by PeterB

[Ned]

I'm glad that someone is building this. It was one of many that I started but never finished. I wish that I could remember what I did with all of these unfinished kits, or what it was that made me give up. Maybe they were just too big for my tiny bedroom once the wings went on.

This is one of those kits that my 'Buy' finger has been hovering over recently, but I have been good and resisted.

Good luck!

[Graham Boak]

The DB606 was two DB601s; the later mass production engine making more sense than going back to the earlier DB600.  (On the other hand, the DB600 was a bomber engine.)  The DB610 was two DB605s, which was not much more than an improved DB601, same size.  The DB603 was a lot larger engine, and a twin one of those (DB613) would have been excellent for the He.177.  However DB had a lot of trouble getting the DB603 to work, and it never achieved the intended full mass production by itself, let alone coupled..

 

(I must admit thinking that the DB610 was two DB603s , so I  suspect this is said somewhere fairly well known.)

 

For those who fancy an He.177, the Revell kit is the one to get.

 

EDIT: Earlier for obsolescent; a fairer judgement.  I must admit wondering just how much the engines varied, and which really would have been a better choice?  Given the timescales, it seems likely that the coupled engines in the He.119 would have been based on the DB600 rather than the later DB601.  Food for thought.  Doesn't matter for the model.

[PeterB]

18 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The DB606 was two DB601s; the later mass production engine making more sense than going back to the obsolescent DB600.  (On the other hand, the DB600 was a bomber engine.)  The DB610 was two DB605s, which was not much more than an improved DB601, same size.  The DB603 was a lot larger engine, and a twin one of those (DB613) would have been excellent for the He.177.  However DB had a lot of trouble getting the DB603 to work, and it never achieved the intended full mass production by itself, let alone coupled..

 

(I must admit thinking that the DB610 was two DB603s , so I  suspect this is said somewhere fairly well known.)

 

For those who fancy an He.177, the Revell kit is the one to get.

Yes, the DB 600 was supposedly for bombers and the DB 601 for fighters as I understand it. I made a typo in my last post - meant 601!

 

24 minutes ago, Ned said:

I'm glad that someone is building this. It was one of many that I started but never finished. I wish that I could remember what I did with all of these unfinished kits, or what it was that made me give up. Maybe they were just too big for my tiny bedroom once the wings went on.

This is one of those kits that my 'Buy' finger has been hovering over recently, but I have been good and resisted.

Good luck!

As Graham says the Revell one is probably a better choice as it has the more detailed cockpit interior and also has a boxed in tail-wheel bay together with a seat for the tail gunner (see later), besides which I believe it is more accurate and the decs are a much better selection. Looking at Kingkit just now there are 2 Airfix Greifs with a Revell one sort of in between their prices, but I will refrain from doing an "Enzo"!😄

 

Pete

Edited August 12 by PeterB

[Adrian Hills]

All problems with the interior can be solved by filling it with people. Maybe a few from other sources.

I have a modern Airfix He111 "Motorhead" version and have already bought Lemmy and the rest of the band which will be adapted from Scleich figures 🙂

[PeterB]

30 minutes ago, Adrian Hills said:

All problems with the interior can be solved by filling it with people. Maybe a few from other sources.

I have a modern Airfix He111 "Motorhead" version and have already bought Lemmy and the rest of the band which will be adapted from Scleich figures 🙂

Interesting suggestion but I think I will give it a miss.😄

 

Pete

Edited August 12 by PeterB

[dogsbody]

This image is from Profile Publication #234:

 

 

It shows the aircraft ere fitted with two Hs293's. They were used operationally on a few occasions but without much, if any success.

 

 

 

Chris

[PeterB]

Thanks Chris,

 

Yes, I have a bit of info which might surface later in the build on the subject of Hs 293 usage with KG 40 and perhaps KG 100 as well. Some years ago I read an article, can't remember what it was in, about 177's forming up for a raid like in your pic, or maybe on the tarmac after just returning from one, probably something to do with Operation Steinbock - the raids on the UK between January and May 1944 sometimes called the "Little Blitz". They were caught on the ground outside their hangars by a strafing attack from a formation of Mustangs and took heavy losses. Your picture reminded me of it.

 

Speaking of losses, Griehl say that about some 235 out of 1150 177 built were lost. He breaks this down as follows - 36 pilot error, 5 maintenance error, 5 equipment failure, 2 airframe/structural failure, 28 engine fires, 78 due to enemy action and 70 missing for reasons unknown, which I make to be only 224 but he also says several more were lost due to strafing, ground accidents and the like. I would have expected more engine fires given its reputation, but maybe they managed to limp home?

 

Pete

Edited August 12 by PeterB

[Troy Smith]

13 hours ago, PeterB said:

Other than that I suspect the biggest problem will be painting it as I am not very good at mottling or Wellenmuster.

there is always this....

 

one scheme that maybe brushable

 

the cloud scheme used by KG40,  I've seen a couple of suggestions on colours,  @SafetyDad  maybe able to find the references, mine are buried.

 

from

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/aircrafts-2/he_177/

 

One memory building this was the brick red rudder (Airfix M1 at time)....  which now seems unusual  though the one tested by the RAF has a coloured rudder, perhaps where Airfix got the idea.   

 

HTH

 

 

PS edit Though looking back at this, I now note the coloured rudder....

 

 

[SafetyDad]

The He177 is a mottler's dream or an airbrusher's nightmare depending upon your position.

 

However, there seems to be some hope. @Troy Smith mentioned in the recent Lancaster thread that he had learned a lot from sifting through various post-war Lancaster pics. I've had a similar experience here, looking through He177 photos to find non-mottled finishes.

 

Have a look at this

 

 

 

All of the same airframe found abandoned in 1945. Wk Nr 550316.

 

Source:

 

Chris Goss, in Sea Eagles Volume Two provides a profile based upon these pictures

 

 

Although Chris Goss states that 550316 had RLM65 undersurfaces, the photos show a very light wash-out tone, that to me seems rather more likely to be 76. 

 

Source:

 

Now the sharp-eyed will have noticed a problem - no mottling but this aircraft carries FuG 200 search radar on the nose. A nightmare to model! (Although, were it me, I would omit this detail and argue I had modelled the machine after delivery, but before radar fitting....)

 

I then found this

 

Look at the Wk Nr. - 550256. It seems that this batch of He177s (built by Arado) shared this camo finish. I hadn't appreciated this until I went looking for photos without mottling. 

 

From here:

 

and also from this source the KG40 camo scheme, which should be more straightforward than some of the others

 

 

Notice the caption mentioning the undersurface colouring - was this RLM65 or 76?

 

And finally, one more from the non-mottled production batch

 

 

Wk Nr 550077 F8+AN from 2./KG40. Same production batch as the two above, although this aircraft has had light mottling oversprayed onto the original factory finish. This aircraft features on an Owl decal sheet

 

https://www.super-hobby.co.uk/products/He-177-A-5-KG-40.html#gallery_start

 

All photos posted solely for the purpose of research/discussion.

 

You'll need to check the subtype of He177 portrayed in the Airfix kit, as this Arado-built batch seems to have been A-5s, rather than A-3s

 

HTH

 

SD

 

 

[Graham Boak]

A few fragments. 

 

 The RAF example had previously been flown in French markings.  The red(?) rudder is an overpaint of the tricolour.

 

Two Hs293 would not worry an He.177, and is recorded from the British side at least once as two separate attacks from a single aircraft.  Three is another matter.  Just too dangerous.  The second would have been dodgy enough.  One reason for the low success of these attacks was the rapid introduction of jamming devices on Allied warships.

 

I gathered all the photos I could of KG40's distinctive camouflage, and found it more varied than I'd have liked.  Sometimes there are two upper colours, sometimes three.  Individual patterns varied, as did whether the lightest colour strayed onto the underside.   The underside is almost certainly the standard 65 for bombers, with the lightest upper colour being 76.  I've seen it suggested that this was simply applied over a low demarcation 70/71, (or more likely 72/73) but I could find no sign of a straight-edge demarcation between two dark colours in any photo.  I would go with 74 overall, as often suggested, as appropriate for a maritime aircraft, with sometimes an intermediate colour appearing in small patches - 02 or 74?  However knowing what we know now about about maritime Ju.88s in the Mediterranean the base colour could be dark blue.  (This is just my combination of ideas, and possibly way out.)

 

Warning: I know of no contemporary source describing these aircraft,  Everything is interpretation of b&w photos, and knowledge of standard Luftwaffe schemes.  Which these clearly are not.

[Adrian Hills]

A good looking mottling/stippling effect can be achieved by simply cutting with a sharp knife the bristles down on a ROUND brush. Leaving perhaps 2-3mm of hair length.

 

If using this technique start in one place, do a bit, then move to somwhere else, again for a short time and then move on. By using this method the finish will look better than starting in one place and continuing. As you do it your style changes slightly and moving from place to place will disguise this change.

 

Hope this helps.