[Ruy Horta]

Slippery ground, but...

There are areas that can be discussed (ad nauseam).

The exact shades of JG 54 are still in debate and their "exactness" might even be questionable as they experimented over a longer time frame and that could mean that different colors were used.

So that leaves the wreck and interpretation. Of course trace paint is great to determine the color, but that still leaves the application.

The restored a/c has a perfect covering coat, applied with care and attention, as much to look good as it is to protect the a/c from the elements.

On a wreck it is difficult to judge the original coating because of the wear and tear of the elements over half a century.

BUT imho the main error lies in the application of the field camouflage. IMHO both original wreck and original color photographs in the field, included in the link, show an uneven application of the new paint layers over the original 74/75 camo, making for a rough in the field look as opposed to the paint shop look of the lovingly restored bird. That's besides the wear and tear of a combat aircraft, although that certainly adds up to the "combat" look we are used to when looking at original photographs.

So my main contention, imho field camouflage was often applied in a relatively thin and/or uneven coating, which combined with operational wear and tear made for a different looking combat aircraft - distinctly different from a R/C model.