The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Several years ago there was an exhaustive debate on 12 O'Clock High! on the correctness of camouflage colors offered by various sources. At the moment, I've been asked by Legend Flyers (current name for the organization that includes the Me 262 Project) to assist with getting the camouflage and markings of the former Duxford Me 163 B, W.Nr. 191660, as accurate as possible. Flying Legends has been contracted to do the restoration of this aircraft.

Frankly, camouflage and markings are pretty far from my own areas of interest and expertise, but I know that we have some folks in the membership who know this stuff backwards and forwards and who could lend their expertise to the cause.

Since the great debate (did anyone save this for reference?), Ken Merrick's two-volume C&M set was issued along with it's 5 paint chip charts, so perhaps the view of what is now the most accurate representation has changed. Past sources that I am aware of include Aircraft Camouflage and Markings 1907-1954 of 1956 by Robertson, Luftwaffe Colors, Vol. 3, 1943-45 of 1977 by Smith & Gallaspy, The Official Monogram Painting Guide to German Aircraft 1935-1945 of 1980 by Merrick and Hitchcock, the paint charts offered by Eagle Editions, and the book, whose title I don't know, by Ullman.

Where do we now stand in our understanding of the most accurate reference or references and where do questions remain?

Regards,
Richard T. Eger

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

I advise you to write to Ken Merrick, Jerry Crandall (Eagle publishers) and Ullman, care of their publishers. Jerry (or Judy) Crandall often appears on Hyperscale, and Ullman writes articles for British aircraft modelling magazines, so they should be reasonably easy to track down. They also appear as speakers at UK and US IPMS gatherings, so could be traced by that route.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

I can drop a mail to Ken if necessary.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear Graham and Franek,

I've tried calling Ken and now have e-mailed him, but have not been successful in making contact. Assuming his e-mail address has not been changed in the last 6 months, my missive should have been received. I was trying to reach Ken to see if he had the markings directive to which he referred in his caption to his color photo of the AWM Me 163 B, hoping that it would also provide the official camouflage pattern for this aircraft.

I haven't written to Jerry, although that is a possibility.

I have a Michael Ullmann in my address book, but the address may be a bit out of date.

That said, though, if these 3 authors differ in what they offer, how would I get an independent assessment from asking each one? I certainly don't want to insult them. So, I guess I was looking more toward peer review of what they or others have presented.

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard
Another man that comes to my mind is Phil Butler, who may have some related photographs. There is also a question, as to what is on actual airframe, ie. if it was carefully sand blasted or not.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear Franek,

You have a good point about Phil, as he might have some color photos.

Beyond these folks, has there been no debate about what camouflage color charts and interpretations seem to be the most accurate since Merrick's new books were published? Flying Legends is having to contend with different color chart colors claiming to be the same RLM color. They need assistance in order to know which one or ones to believe.

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard,
may I ask why you depend (solely?) on books? Aren't there enough contemporary (ww2 and later) photos available that can be used as a reference? Are there no more original paints on your Me 163?
And reg. the specific colors for this Messerschmitt Me-163B-1a (W.Nr.191060, became VF241 later), IMO, there are not really many questions and doubts. AFAIK the color schemes of a (standard) Me 163 are pretty well documented.

reg the most acurate colorchart and interpretation:
The most reliable colorchart would be found in LDV 521/1, 521/2 and also 521/3. But how to interpretate +60 year old manuals that not really were "a liabel industrial standard", is a different (and IMO sometimes philosophical) question.
For the scheme: IIRC there are factory schemes available.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard,


I suggest you go to the Eagle Editions web site and use their order line phone number. Judy Crandall usually answers.



Best,
Ed

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear Christian and Ed,

Christian, how would we be able to obtain the LDV and factory schemes for the Me 163 B that you refer to. As for the ready availability of accurate information on the paint schemes for this aircraft, to which you say there are "not many questions and doubts", it would be quite helpful if you could direct me to where this information can be found. As I said in my original note, neither the subject area of camouflage and markings, nor the Me 163 B, itself, are areas in which I have much personal research knowledge nor interest. I am doing this as a non-paid technical consultant to Flying Legends, which started with new-build Me 262's, an area where I was on much firmer ground. My hope is that others, who know exactly where the stones are hidden under the water's surface, could help us out without my falling in and drowning!!

Ed, I'll give Jerry a call.

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard,
I now see that the main problem is exactely where you describe it.
There is actualy no one single solution for that amount of questions you have to solve. To narrow it down to a workable chunck I would want you to look at these links first:
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/fo...?showtopic=594
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/fo...showtopic=2041


To have an idea where and -most important- what to look for on original documents, have a look at
http://www.rlm-farben.de/german/index.htm
There click the fifth link ("Quellen"), left on the navi-bar. On the newly opened page click the link "Schriftum". That enables you to download a MS-Excel file (in German, of course) containing a listing of the publications that company uses and the source they are obtained or copied from.

You could then even contact them and ask them for advice or assistance. Their e-mail addy is: mail@rlm-farben.de
Their short english profile is:
They have done substantional paint jobs for DTM, Berlin and Luftfahrtmuseum Hannover-Laatzen. And that would be the closest you can get to an original paintjob.

I hope this might be more helpful to you, then my previous comment.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Just to add that the Smith & Gallaspy book has colour photos of the Australian Me 163 while it was still in its original paint, before it was "restored."

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard, you can try the Canadian Aviation Museum
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/c...-1aKomet.shtml

How authentic it is, can't say.

I think they have a second one that has not been restored.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear Christian, Nick, Kutscha, and, again, Ed,

I thank you for your leads. I will give them a follow-up.

Ed, I did have a lengthy and quite fruitful discussion with Jerry Crandall. Thank you for pushing me in that direction. In Jerry's opinion, the 1980 Merrick and Hitchcock C&M binder is the most useful, coupled with having some guidance as to the right chip to select for the myriad of same numbered offerings.

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard,


Good to hear. Good luck to you and everyone involved.


Best,
Ed

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Hi,

I quite understand the problem that Richard Eger has over the restoration colours to be used on the Me 163, quite apart from the variation in some colours offered in various charts (particularly the common and ‘standard’ RLM 65). For someone who has been following the ‘great debate’ for nearly forty years it is also no surprise that very little real critique and comment is made about recent publications on the subject of Luftwaffe colours. I have several serious questions about some of these and have even offered Ruy Horta some postings – but it is really not worth the hostility that is often heaped on anybody (especially an ‘unknown’ ‘non-player’) who deviates from the given line. But, of immediate relevance to this thread I offer this – if only to clarify or outline to those less up-to-date with the changes in opinions and interpretations of unchanged evidence:

A mysterious change of colour (not just RLM number) seems to have occurred with regard to the preserved Australian Me 163. In the Monogram book (page 51) the colours are confidently asserted to be a low-contrast scheme of RLM 81 (a brown) and RLM 82 (a dark green) and RLM 65. This is supported by colour photographs and three colour chips on page 49. But, one of the severe problems with the Monogram Guide is that the origin of the colour chips is not defined. In my early days I naively assumed that they were exactly matched to the preserved paints from the actual aircraft figured on the opposite page. I guess that they are, in fact, generic? In Ken Merrick’s latest Luftwaffe Camouflage & Markings Vol.1 (page 187) the camouflage of the Australian Me163 is now described as RLM 81, RLM 82 and ‘greenish RLM 76’. But, here the RLM 82 is linked to the pre-war RLM 62 (medium-dark olive green). What was the green colour of the aircraft – a dark olive green (= ’new’ RLM 83/RLM 64) or a medium-dark olive green (= ‘new’ RLM 82/RLM 62)? Is it merely because it is accepted that ‘new’ RLM 82 (‘old’ RLM83) is actually a darker, duller colour? – I think this is the ‘right’ solution, by the way. If so, where does this leave its former life as the brighter medium green ‘RLM83’ that is so prevalent in the earlier literature (such as the Monogram Guide) and that featured (still features?) widely as garish grass-green paint jobs on models and in illustrations?

What is to become of the restorations of the preserved Smithsonian Me 262 and the Dornier Do 335 that have been finished with the brighter medium green colour (‘old’ RLM 83 = ‘new’ RLM 82?) that contrasts so strongly with the dark brown RLM 81?

All very confusing and I hope that Richard has found the solution through his recent contacts.

Best wishes


GrahamB

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

IIRC, the original Monogram guide has the colors Farbton 82 and 83 rvered and an errata was issued on that, among other items.

So it is not that 82 may have changed.

Nearly every model paint maker, including Xtracolor/crylic still has 82 as the darker color.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard,

Try perhaps David E. Brown.

Best regards,

Philippe

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear All,

I am again reminded as to why I try to stick with history and technical details and avoid, as much as possible, the subject of camouflage and markings, save that now I've been asked to get involved.

I don't think I'm going to achieve a consensus, although I might get lucky.

But, just to muddy the water a bit further, if one refers to the Monogram guide, the question is why are there so many variations on each of the RLM number colors and which one is "correct" for its specific number?

Then, of course, one big bone of contention is that Ken, in his latest offerings, has changed the colors, especially RLM 81, which has a purple or violet hue and is now called dunkelbraun rather than Brunviolett. Jerry Crandall believes that the closest correct color, based on his collection of actual original aircraft parts, is the bottom left chip on page 35 of the 1980 Monogram guide. This is more a chocolate brown without a hint of purple or violet. Yet, Ken presents in the Monogram guide actually 5 examples of RLM 81: The one on page 35 already mentioned, an olive complected one at the top of page 37, a brown one at the bottom of page 37, a slightly purple/violet example on page 49 in the section on the Me 163, and one on page 59 with an olive shading.

One possible explanation is that the colors varied over time and/or from paint manufacturer to paint manufacturer, that is, paint coloration wasn't a pure science, even if we want it to be and even if there was a dictated formula to go by. Available ingredients may have varied, affecting the end results. Nor, likely, was there a driving force such as for marroon Buick's to all come off the assembly line exactly the same color. Anyway, that's one possible view as to why so much variation as seen in the 1980 guide. Comments?

Beyond this, as Graham has pointed out, is that experts' opinions of what was used appears to change over time, just adding to the confusion. If we back up 2 years to 1978 and look at Appendix B to Jeff Ethell's book on the Me 163, as was pointed out to me, we have the following description:

"RLM test aircraft, including the A & B series, were uniformly finished in Hellgrau 76 or Hellblau 65 overall with Dunkelgrun 71 applied to the ruders in some cases (as with the Me163BV33, GH+IN). Code letters were applied in Schwarz 22.

"The basic camouflage pattern applied at the factory for operational aircraft consisted of Dunkelgrun 71 and Schwarzgrun 70 in splinter pattern on all upper surfaces and Hellblau 65 on the lower fuselage surfaces and undersurfaces of the wings. Some operational Komets retained this factory colour scheme but this was the exception. Once the new Komet had flown a bit, the mechanics would proceed to replace the factory scheme with their own fanciful alterations. There simply was no pattern to the changing colours and schemes."

More muddy water.

So, let's go back to firmer ground and take another look at the 1980 Monogram guide. It is claimed that the Australian Me 163 B, W.Nr. 191907, still retains its original colors. The color photos of this aircraft are of excellnt quality, although the blue of the sky in the top photo appears to be a bit off. The darker color to the rear of the cockpit more closely matches the purple/violet tinged RLM 81 sample in Ken's latest offering in volume 2, Tafel 5. than the Brunviolett RLM 81 in brown shade on page 35 of the 1980 guide as suggested by Jerry Crandall.

Further back on the fuselage we come to presumably a fairly bright green RLM 82. Ken's latest offers an (oliv-)grün color, which this is certainly not, while Jerry's selection is the RLM 82 Dunkelgrün chip from the 1980 guide, found in the middle of page 37, a noticeably closer match. Whether reflection of the sky in the photos is altering the perceived actual colors, I don't know, or even the fact that the sky color appears to be off in the top photo.

Okay, so what about Ethell's claim? Ken's latest RLM 81 appears to be a closer match to the area behind the cockpit than his RLM 70 or 71 offerings on the same card and neither of these is within a mile of the bright green on the rear fuselage. Similarly, there isn't a match with the 1980 guide chips either.

I think we have two potential sources of reasonably accurate colors. One is the AWM Me 163 B. Perhaps someone can take both the 1980 guide and Ken's latest and simply do color matches of the chips, regardless of the numbers on them. It is the color, not the number, that we really need to match. Is anyone willing to do this?

Second, is to get as much background information on Me 163 B, W.Nr. 191660, now being restored. Unfortunately, as it was received by Legend Flyers, at least 2 areas were down to bare wood - no paint or markings to go by. Ray Bossom, who was involved in the 1976 restoration attempt at Duxford, says they never went down to the original paint. The second restoration effort at Duxford in 1997 might have done this and any notes, paint chips, or whatever that were saved would be most helpful. The photos of the aircraft on Rob de Bie's website suggest that some effort was done in this regard, as at least 2 emblems seem to be present in one of the photos on the left forward fuselage. I plan to contact Stephen Walton, the archivist at Duxford, in this regard, but if anyone else has anything, please do come forward.

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Graham B .....PM inbound.

D.B. Andrus

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard,
unfortunaly the whole topic is far more difficult then what you outlined above.
I attached the listing and designation of Michael Ullmann's Luftwaffe colors book (1997, english edition by Hikoki) to show in how far your thought on the different varieties (of RLM 81) are valid. As i.e. reg RLM 76 ("Lichtblau/ light blue")- other sources (i.e. Monogram painting guide) claim there more then just two varieties for this shade: upto 4.

Then, FYI, you cannot go for the names of the colors, because in the original RLM designation there were none, there were only the numbers. The names are postwar additions to help describing the different colors. And the names are nowhere standardised.

Finaly, matching the original paint and a printed color chip is not a workable possiblility, because a printed paint and the original sample you want matched are not of the same "paint-typ and -compostion". And since the matching will most probabely not be in a controlled, callibrated enviroment, the results could end up being very questionable.
Also: pls. keep in mind that a paint might have changed over time -atleast on the very surface. So you have to make sure the paint was/ is not covered with added clear coatings or waxes, because this will for sure change the color appearance. To have (a) sure and valid sample(-s) to match, you cannot avoid taking (a) sample(-s) and analysing the cut-through(-s) with a microscope. These samples can also be used to analyse the compostion of the pigments (i.e. with an electron-microscope). A photographic/ visual matching alone is -IMO- not sufficient to backup/ decline a complex matter like this.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear Christian,

I hope that the rest are learning as much from this discussion as I am.

I found your comments very illuminating. If my understanding is correct, in Ken's latest books he tried to approach the subject by dealing with original paint chip formulations. However, with your confirmation that, say, RLM 81 can't be represented by a single sample, which is what he has done, then where do we go from here?

Use of a colorimeter could certainly help in making comparisons, but you do have a point that the represented sample as seen on an unrestored aircraft may be misleading but it may also be all that we have to work with. In other words, a random paint sample from part X off of a Dornier from 1943 might be totally worthless, even if we could section it as you suggest. Thus, the visual cross check that I suggested may be the best compromise that can be made in terms of efficiency in obtaining an answer.

If you have a better suggestion that can be reasonably employed or feel that a particular representation has covered the subject with reliable paint chip samples, please share this information with us.

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

This is only another proof of how much damage is being done by so called restorations.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

If the object is an accurate restoration of an aircraft, does it really matter which colour is a variation of which or what the correct number was? Interesting [to us] yes, but vital...?

When you have apparently reliable colour photos of Me 163s in real RLM paint and samples from crashed or preserved aircraft, isn't it acceptable practice to match those as closely as possible and paint the restored aircraft accordingly?

If you had no photos or samples and just a list of numbers to go on, then finding out what those numbers meant "in the paint can" would be far more important, wouldn't it - or am I missing something?

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

May be Red Bull can sponsor the restoration? :D They know how to paint historical aircraft to make them eyecatching! :rolleyes:

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear Nick,

I seemed to have been asleep when you made a previous comment that the AWM Me 163 B has been restored, presumably meaning that the current camouflage is not original. Is this correct? If so, how close is the new to the original that was on the aircraft?

As for using color photos, it has been pointed out to me that, depending on the film type, the hue may be off. I will admit that the 2 color photos in Ken Merrick's 1980 guide showing the AWM Me 163 B, W.Nr. 191907 in its original colors appear to be superb. Can anyone attest as to their fidelity to the original?

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

With the AWM 163, according to the the curator at the AWM, the aircraft has spent much of its life in doors, in 'reasonable storage conditions'. Unfortunately it was damaged during mechanical restoration by the RAAF (he wasn't sure on the precise date and didn't mention how) but sufficient areas of paint/camouflage and marking areas survived to take samples from.

These samples were then wet/dry graded and used as matches for a repaint. This was done in the late '80s early '90s in conjunction with the AWM's art conservation and restoration department. At the moment there are no plans to further match original hues of paint primarily because original investigation of the paint showed the layers were exceedingly thin and that the matches so far made are 'very close' to the presumed original (based on the work done in the late 80s and early 90s).

As for the markings of the aircraft, the AWM does have some photographs of the aircraft on which to base schemes and stencil placing. Although some angles of the aircraft are missing and others are incomplete, wherever possible the photographs will provide the evidence of stencil placing and camofalge patterns

Hope this is of some interest

rgd

Adam

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Great discussion, and I'm adding my two cents, which is what it's worth.

Years ago I worked for a large multi national corporation that had a specialty paint division for industrial paints. I spent two weeks with that division and these thoughts stand out in my mind. The paints they were making for machinery manufacturers each had a specific color. They would produce these paints in batches as they were ordered. Each batch had to pass a test, it had to match the 'control' paint chip. But they didn't have just one control chip, they had two. To pass, the paint had to be somewhere between those two chips, and they were noticably different chips, I was amazed. I can imagine the last year or two of the war, a paint batch coming into the Messerschmitt Regensberg plant, and them refusing to accept it, holding up production, because the color isn't up to standard. Can't have the Reich defended by any aircraft having even a slightly incorrect shade of paint, better to lose the air war than fight with incorrect paint.

The application of that paint made a difference. The base color if any made a difference in the hue of the top coats because most of the camoflage paints were not sprayed on as a solid color, and even the spraying differed by the painter applying it. In other words, they were not painted to 'museum standard'. There are photographic examples of the same aircraft, sprayed with exactly the same paints by two different painters at the same time, and it's easy to spot the difference. Even thinning of the paints had another effect on the finish. So, I think an aircraft being painted for a museum should look as much like the photo of a wartime varient down to the primer showing here and there, and a few scrapes and scratches, and lest we not forget what the sun and rain did to these finishes that were not exactly made to last like the clear coat paints our cars have! Lastly, most of these aircraft had a coat of wax over them to gain a few more kilometers per hour in speed, and that darkened the paint a shade.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear Richard,
we have now reached a point, where any decision to be made is a very personal one. There is no one and only solution for this. I cannot really say this or that researcher did something intentionaly wrong. Because in this matter, there are more then only one possiblilities/ solutions. --I didn't intend to "accuse" anybody of applying a wrong method. Who am I to do that? I also can only offer you (a) possibility(-ies). Nobody has the one and only truth here. The choise is still yours and yours only (or that of those who actualy have to make this decision).--
Remember "Radio Eriwan"? They would answer: "it depends ..." And it could be continued here "...on so many things/ the circumstances".
Reg representing one and only sample, you will have to ask (yourself), if i only have one single sample to analyse, can/ may I generalise the conclusion? The answer will probabely be something like, yes in this case that is possible. The remaining question is only: upto what extinct. As you see we are now getting philosophical. And you do have the freedom to follow up or not.




Agreed! That is a valid attempt.

Well, I would want to suggest to follow Nick Beale's thought with a slight modification.

•Forget the term "accurate restoration" (there is no such!) and replace it with something more general. Like i.e. (Reconstructional) approach. This will give you the freedom to see it as and act according to what it can, will and only be: a compromise or proximity.
•Keep in mind that the colors issued to that plane (late war color, absolutely non- standardised) only need to give a "more or less" correct impression. If you want to use AWM 163 as a reference, do that, with the maximum effort, you can put into it to achieve close as possible colormatches. Nobody would hold a colorchart against you results and say.: "hey, this doesn't match". And even if, that is easy to encounter.
•On a museum display it (usually) doesn't say, the colors used are RLM what ever. Instead, if ever you would give a color info, you would say something like "(the newly applied colors/paints) represent the scheme "XY" of 1944 to the best of (y)our knowledge." That is already good enough and absolutely sufficient (if you don't make the mistake and choose a too obviously different shade).

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear Nick, Adam, Flitzer, and Christian,

Thank you all for your latest inputs.

Nick, I agree that trying to do a match to the AWM aircraft is a good approach. We are pretty certain the wings on the Duxford plane come from 2 aircraft, Aero Detail 10 says the Me 163 is made up of parts to 3 aircraft, and I think someone here even suggested 4. I have contacted Duxford to see what notes could be found for the 1997 restoration attempt and maybe something will come of that, but I tend to think we'll never know well how this aircraft looked at war's end. So, attempting to match the AWM machine, possibly with whatever markings Duxford can provide, may be our best option.

Adam, thank you for your valuable input. Do you have a lead as to who to go to to access the curatorial file information?

Flitzer, now we know exactly why the Germans lost the war. I'm amazed that no one ever thought of this! Seriously, you do bring up some serious points. These are also likely the cause of many aficiondo's disputes as to which color is correct.

Christian, thank you for your philosophical views, which support those of Nick and where I seem to be headed in my own thinking, with everyone's help.

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

The caption in the book said the 163 had already been "restored" in an erroneous scheme (IIRC it was a combination of greys). This was all a long time ago now of course and from other comments here, it seems like it's been redone since.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard, Nick,

I spoke directly to the curator of large objects - a Mr John White - who gave the impression the aircraft's paint scheme had only been 'repaired' (for want of a better term) the once. My advice would be to contact John White at the AWM directly. His relevants are:

john.white@awm.gov.au

Alternatively (and depending upon who's paying the international phone call), you can call John, though for ease of contact I suggest calling the main office and asking to be put through to either John or the Large Objects curating section (both only available Mon-Fri) - depending upon who is available. The phone number is:

+61-2-6243-4211

There is also a research section at the AWM, though I'm not sure quite how much information they would have on the aircraft. It can be contacted through

info@awm.gov.au or on +61-2-6243-4315


As a lst resort, the AWM's postal address is

GPO Box 345
Canberra, ACT
Australia 2601

regards and good luck

Adam

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Looking at original colour photos 'before' and having seen the aircraft 'after', it looks like a complete make over of the paint.there are no 'patches' of paint as per the non restored finish. The original wax finish was still extant previous to the repaint as well

regards
Dave

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard, sorry, I am confused what is the goal you are trying to achieve?

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear Franek, et al,

Thanks for your added inputs. The project has the URL of this thread and have checked it as input suggestions have come in. Adam, thank you especially for the contact info at the AWM.

Franek, ideally, it would be great to have C&M on W.Nr. 191660 identical to what was originally on it. If we can find such in adequate time, that could be done. But, lacking that, the second route is to match the original paint and utilize the paint scheme that was on W.Nr. 191907 at the AWM as a guide to restoring W.Nr. 191660 with an authentically appearing generic C&M. What original information on the C&M of W.Nr. 191660 could be incorporated if it can be made available in a timely manner. I hope that answers your question.

David McDonald and Alan Scheckenbach have been especially helpful in making contact with those that had been involved in the 1997 restoration effort of W.Nr. 191660 at Duxford. Amongst the contacts, Russ Snadden has claimed categorically that the various parts are all to one aircraft, claiming that stories to the contrary are all false. That is good news.

From Legend Flyers, one wing's wing root rib bears a data plate with the following information:

Sach-Nr 8 163 524
Werk-Nr 191 400
Hersteller: eKO or cKO

In paint on the rib is W-Nr. 660. My guess is that 8 163 425 is either the drawing number for the rib or represents the entire wing and that 191 400 is the W.Nr. for the part or wing. Can anyone help with this?

With the help of so many of you, it seems like daily we are getting closer to the ideal state.

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Reminder:
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/fo...?showtopic=594
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/fo...showtopic=2041



The "Sach-Nr" reads like this:
"8" General aircraft constructional equipment/ part/ section
"163" The assigned RLM # of the aircraft (Me 163)
"524" IIRC it referrs to a drawing or layout#.

The Werk-Nr is the manufacturer's serial # of this part or assembly.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Hi Richard,

I have been reading this discussion with interest. Being a modeller and Australian - I try to keep an eye out for information on 'our' 163. Unfortunately it has been in Canberra ever since I remember and I'm in Melbourne so I haven't had a chance to look at it in its current state yet. If you haven't done so, you should check Rob de Bie's fine Me 163 site. There are many photos and extensive notes on all the 163 survivors with colour notes. This page is on the AWM 163 and gives a history and period colour photos of the aircraft. http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/australia.htm

Somewhere on cd's or my old pc hard disk I also have some pre 'restoration' colour photos of the 163 taken by John Hopton on his now closed website. They are different to the ones posted on Rob's site but may/may not add more detail - Colour photos seem to be affected by the film type/lighting conditions and I have seen different photos of the AWM 109G showing dramatically different colour appearances based on what lighting was used (artificial/outdoor/cloudy/sunny)

Cheers

Michael

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Dear All,

Some good news. While reported earlier that Flying Legends believed there was no original paint on their aircraft, Russ Snadden joined the discussion off-site and vehemently insisted that there was. Work was halted on the started paint removal on the undersides of the wings and, sure, enough, by use of a scalpel, it was determined that there were 4 layers of camouflage paint and a reddish-brown primer. The bottom camouflage color matched the "1/72 Scale Light Blue 76" on page 7 of the 1980 Monogram guide. The following is exactly what Bob Hammer reported to me:

"I scraped off the flaking outer coat which we know is not original. The
2nd layer was a dirty white almost beige. The 3rd layer was a light
green. The 4th layer, I believe, is original. I matched this with the
color chips in Merrick's 1980 Guide, as shown in the attached photos.
The 1/32 scale light blue 76 was very close. the 1/72 scale light blue
76 was exactly the same shade. (The photo does not show this very well
but Nick, Maureen, and I feel its this shade.) The 5th layer is the
reddish brown primer."

With this fortunate reversal of fortune, it should be possible to ascertain the original camouflage colors and markings on this aircraft.

Christian, I alerted Maureen, the project's office manager, to the URL for the restoration photos of their aircraft. I also agree with your assessment of the dataplate information.

Michael, we would be interested in seeing any pre-restoration color photos of the AWM Me 163 for the guidance that they can provide.

Regards,
Richard

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Congrats, Richard, on the interessting news. I'm happy for you, you were able to retrieve lots of help and information here.

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Hi Richard,

I've sent you a private message about the AWM Me 163.

Best wishes with your restoration.

Regards

Michael

Re: The great camouflage & markings debate
 

Richard, I hope the lesson was learned and every attempt will be made to preserve original colour coating for future generations. If you want a smoot new finish, a standard procedure is to put a protective coat, on which you can apply a finish of your own.
If you need more information and contact to the experts, drop me an email.
Cheers