[Milos Gazdic]

Hello Leo,

and many thanks for an amazing reply!

Most importantly, thank you for pointing the photo in Rodeike's Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug book! I don't know how did I miss it sitting there on a page just next to the images I've been studying with the magnifier :) Crazy! Probably I was so much into page 289 that it just slipped my attention!

Anyhow, if P.R.'s caption on page 288 is correct - that I am happy that I assumed correctly that it's not the same aircraft that I am trying to portray in my 1/48 scale model.

As a professional photographer with high interest in analogue processes (that's how I've started 20 or so years ago, shooting even collodion process), I can reassure you that darker look of the starboard side doesn't come from the material used for the photo. I am suggesting that it's all the product of the extensive usage and exhausts or even some "smoke stains" of some possible "Notlandung" as suggested by Steve M on the same discussion over on Hyperscale. I strongly believe that starboard side image was taken later in time than the port side one.

I have already applied small yellow circular decal for a stencil on the the port side on the machine gun cover.

On all the other points I agree 100% which makes me happy too.



I am also posting my discussion with Steve M regarding this machine from Hyperscale discussion group (hoping that it follows the rules of TOCH)

Posted by Steve M / September 29 2016

Some more to add on this Focke...
1: The fuel primer stencil was not typical on Fw190 A-8's, but was more often seen on D-9 airframes. It can be sourced from EagleCals D-9 specific decal sheets. It is likely that EagleCals may not have had access to the photo with Bauer on the cockpit edge at the time they released the specific markings for this airframe.
2: Differences in the camouflage from side to side can easily be explained by strength and direction of the available light. The D/F loop, if knocked off during Notlandung, could easily have been replaced while the gun harmonisation was taking place, given the better access to the belly while being lifted.
3: The metal prop blades often show wear at the tips on the Fw190, this is not unusual. Wooden blades, if fitted,would not show weathering like this, which proves the blade type used here.
4: The differences of camouflage on the cowl panels I think points to replacements. This would be consistent with a minor Notlandung and the missing D/F loop, and could also explain the missing (overpainted?) stencils on the landing gear doors.
5: The prop blades that look wider in one photo do not have the characteristic kink at the tip of the blade... they do look wider than expected but this can be a trick of the angle of the photo. For me, the photo from behind with the worn tips proves the use of metal blades.
Lastly, smooth tyres for me.
S

Respond to this message by Milos Gazdic / September 29 2016

"Hello Steve,
You seem to be very helpful when it comes to my questions about Fw 190 happy.gif Hope you are not one of those who mind questions about such a "mainstream" aircraft? happy.gif I have decided to build in next 1-2 years 90% Fw 190s (with just a few Me 262s, Bf 109s, F4Us & I-16s to relax from the Fw 190 builds (every 10:1 or 8:1) (BTW I already have another Topic started over on TOCH about Fw 190 A-3 but I feel afraid to post it here on HS)
1) Anlaßkraftstoff 3 lt / Fuel Primer Stencil - I think this is basically 1st time I have noticed it on a photo. Maybe because I have been checking so closely... But yeah - it's obviously there & I will follow your advice & check my Dora decals. I have almost all Fw 190 sheets by Eagle Cals - I am sure there will be one out there happy.gif
2) As a photographer by profession - I don't believe that light is playing the role in the looks of the fuselage. Since obviously, power egg was exchanged - maybe there was a problem with it & fumes or even smoke from it were staining the fuselage & lower surfaces of the aircraft. I have finished my model in the looks of the "port side" image, where it looks cleaner and with "original" power egg. I still didn't do the weathering so I will add some stains there but not as heavy as on the gun harmonisation shot. I guess people will be ok with it happy.gif
Since I have added all possible stencils (they are quite visible in the images) I will be adding DF Loop too. I love the looks of it happy.gif
3) Great that wear on the props confirms my assumption that it is standard type of the prop.
4) Your idea of emergency landing is cool. Wish I had my JG300 books here with me in China and not 9000Km away. Maybe there is something written about it there?
5) So you basically believe that small photo on JG300.de page shows same machine? Do you have JG300 books maybe? Are these photos published there maybe in larger size? I am awaiting for my copy to arrive from home end of October but by then I will be done with this model.
Regarding the tyres it still somehow doesn't look smooth for me.
[linked image]
it looks like thread is there. But I could be easily wrong. Unfortunately this morning before work I have glued the threaded tyres to the model, so I doubt there is much way back.
Also look how bright the leg looks... doesn't it?
Thanks a bunch for your help Steve!
Best,
Misko"

Steve M / September 30 2016

Hi Milos,
I am unsure about the Jg300.de photo, only taking Bobo at his word. But the camouflage here on the port cowl seem to match the other starboard shots with the known Werk Nummer so it is likely the same aircraft.

I do not have the Jg300 books unfortunately so cannot say for certain about whether the airframe shown undergoing gun harmonisation was involved in a Notlandung. However I think this is likely, given the evidence of the similar camouflaged cowls from both photos and the missing D/F loop in one shot. Certainly a reason for harmonising the guns might be if the Power Egg was replaced or enough upward force were acting on the cowlings to warrant their replacement, as this force might push the MG131's out of alignment. And after all, "Pitt" Bauer was shot down 7 times!

The tyres were a best guess from my perspective, accounting for the time frame at the last year of the War and the limitations of the device I'm using here (Cell Phone). Be happy with your choice as no-one for certain will prove otherwise!

Steve

We have continued the discussion slightly off topic after that, so I am not posting those post here. I thing some points are quite valid and maybe someone with loss records and information about the possible accidents of this machine could help us here further... (GRM comes to mind with his amazing archive & database!)

Kind regards,
Milos