Page 15
eduard
15
Info Eduard - April 2011
deed possible. I personally suspect that the base was
not used on ‘our’ Doras. It can be noted that on the pre-
served example in Australia of Me 262A-1a, W.Nr.
500200, Black ‘X’ of KG 51, the duralumin bottom sur-
faces were not painted with a base coat at all.
Many researchers cite period color photographs.
This can, however, be misleading. Every amateur pho-
tographer will tell you that even today, with the use
of modern technology, the nal look of the shade will
vary according to if the shot was taken in the morning,
at noon, in the evening, in the spring, or in the summer
or winter, under varying cloud conditions, on a beach,
eld or forest. The conditions that will effect the shot
can be incredibly varied and very dramatic. If you
factor in the age of period photographs and that color
photography was pretty much in its infancy, shifts du-
ring photographic development and manipulation, and
publishing (not to mention the quality and calibration
of scanners and monitors), it becomes clear why a color
pic should not be taken necessarily as denitive. If you
don’t believe me, take a quick glance at the rst volu-
me by J. Crandall, Page 212, the photographs on the
top and the bottom. Notice how much the colors vary
between the pictures on the engine cowl, especially the
green, keeping in mind that the shots came from the
same lm. (Quiz – is it RLM 74 or 83?)
Back to our big-tailed Doras. The theories presen-
ted in the JaPo publications strike me as the most likely.
As noted elsewhere, it is based on intimate knowledge
of German military industry, their subcontractor sys-
tem, ofcial documentation describing coloring
of Luftwaffe aircraft and the unique individual sche-
mes always found from individual manufacturers, pro-
duction blocks, and again, detailed study of black and
white photographs.
This theory is supported by Jerry Crandall in his
publication. His reconstruction of Dora W.Nr. 500645,
Black ‘6’ of JG 2 whose basis was on the work
of a British modeler that matches, with the exception
of small details, Mimetall production, and as they are
presented by JaPo! The British modeler overlooked the
fact that the replacement cowl in the factory scheme of
RLM 83/76 should be from the brown upper surface
of the fuselage separated by a sharp delineation at
the panel line and that the squiggles on the tail surface
should be also brown RLM 81, and not green. It can be
deduced that the British modeler misinterpreted the co-
lor photograph. In this case, however, and coincidenta-
lly (experienced and independent observers using the
published titlepage photograph which is more likely
to be of higher quality) suggests that the illustration
derived does not confuse the green and brown elds.
In all likelihood, there will be discussion about color
photographs of ‘Black 8’, W.Nr. 500581 of II./JG 6,
published in Crandall’s second volume. The green co-
loring of the front end is evident, and the color shots
support JaPo’s theory that there is a replacement en-
gine from another aircraft – the black panel at the
exhausts on the port side of the nose points to manu-
facture at Focke-Wulf. Regarding the dark color on
the fuselage, I would not at this time hazard a guess
as to weather or not it is RLM 81 or 83, especially
when Mimetall tended to spray brown RLM 81 in thin
layers. Even the author of the work didn’t speculate on
this. So, even here, we can lean towards the conclusions
of the study by JaPo. Here, it is worth commenting that
in light of this example, Poruba, Larger and Deboeck
are skilled at the interpretation of black and white
photographs.
In conclusion – from the preceeding, it should be
evident why I hold such high regard for the books pu-
blished by JaPo, and why they were instrumental in
the development of the schemes for our Focke-Wulf
Fw 190D-9 Late kit. Because there is so far no study
that would exceed them, they will remain, for the time
being, the cornerstone for the basis of the camouage
and markings of our Doras.
HISTORY
W.Nr. 500645, III./JG 2, Altenstadt, Germany,
May 1945
This aircraft was destroyed by re at Altenstadt. The recon-
struction of its appearance is based on a color photograph.
From this source, it is evident that this machine went through
an engine change. During this change, the original factory paint
of 83/76, as supplied by Junkers, was not resprayed with 81,
as was generally the case during assembly at Mimetall.
The yellow-white-yellow bands on the fuselage were JG 2
identiers, and the vertical stripe that of its III. Gruppe.
W.Nr. 500648, 9./KG(J)27, Austria,
April 1st, 1945
Yellow ‘6‘ of 9. Staffel KG(J) 27 is currently based on written
records, and photographs, if any exist at all, are hidden away
in private photo albums or deep in institutional archives. Based
on the serial number, it is assumed that the aircraft could also
have been built with the Ta 152 tail. According to documentation,
the plane was lost in combat on April 1st, 1945. The reconstruc-
tion of the camouage scheme is based on the characteristic
scheme out of Mimetall and in the markings of III.Gruppe KG(J)
27. The green-white checkerboard was not carried by all aircraft
of KG(J) 27, but has been documented on Fw 190A-9s of this
Geschwader.
eduard
15
Info Eduard - April 2011
BUY Fw 190D-9 LATE 1/48