ebay photos of Ar240 - not seen before?

[Graham Boak]

But also sadly uninformative.

They were posted in LEMB -
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/fo...=0&gopid=57321&

Sorry I can't get the link to work.

I have made some comments on them, but would appreciate any other thoughts people might have.

[Peter D Evans]

Here you go Graham - http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/fo...howtopic=10547

Cheers
Peter D Evans
LEMB Administrator

[Pawel Burchard]

camo-wise the a/c is similar to +YP

p.

[Graham Boak]

Hi Pavel. All the 1942/43 photos show much the same, if not identical, camouflage on all the Ar240s, which I believe to be 74/75/76 as appropriate for a zerstorer in this period. None of them show the whole pattern. Or have you found a means of distinguishing between the A-series by individual camouflage differences?

The problem I have with identifying it as T5+YP/GL+QA/A-01/240011 is that the wheel doors appear to lack the forward "scallop" shape seen on this aircraft, and indeed all other A-series.

[Pawel Burchard]

There is two colour flat painted area without mottling after the cockpit similar to this visible on other +YP photos. And, perhaps more importatntly, looking on the underside of the wing there is a blurry sign where Y should be and there is no letter visible on yellow wingtip, just like on +YP

p.

[Graham Boak]

The camouflage aft of the cockpit is the same on A-02 (GL+QB), V5 (T5+MH) and A-04 (T9+GL, early photos), if we are talking about the same thing.

Yes, good point, A-02 has the B on the yellow wingtip. But is the blurry sign a Y?

And then, why overpaint (or omit) part of the unit callsign on one aircraft but repaint the StammKennZeichen on the other? Is inter-unit consistency too much to expect? Apparently so.

[Pawel Burchard]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

The camouflage aft of the cockpit is the same on A-02 (GL+QB), V5 (T5+MH) and A-04 (T9+GL, early photos), if we are talking about the same thing.

I wouldn't be so sure, on one photo of GL+QB in Lang's book the fuselage sides above the wing root have mottled appearance, whereas here we have solid camo.

But is the blurry sign a Y?

Could be

And then, why overpaint (or omit) part of the unit callsign on one aircraft but repaint the StammKennZeichen on the other? Is inter-unit consistency too much to expect? Apparently so.

I believe there is no photographic evidence what the full code was... only a guess

p.

[Graham Boak]

The T5 may be a (highly reasonable) guess, but the P is visible on the fuselage. However, as only the individual code is often displayed beneath the wing, perhaps only having the Y there is correct, so I withdraw the comment about it being omitted.

If there is no photo - and I haven't seen one - where did Revell get the idea for their small transfer for 240011? The one on p18 doesn't seem clear enough - although it may be on the original, of course.

Re the camouflage on A-02: OK, I now know what you mean, although I think the quality of the lower photo on P10 of the Profile is not good enough to be certain. The artist clearly thought so, but for +YP! However, T5+MH also has the spine splinter camouflage going down to the wing root.

[Pawel Burchard]

Lang wrote that T5+YP is probable... quite honestly I do not see the reason why it should be, rather +YP seems to be part of Stkz. If the place is given as Orscha then this leads us to 1./100 and further to V7 or V8

[Graham Boak]

The Stkz for A-01 is GL+QA. I have DH+ZU for the V7 (or possibly DM+ZU). I thought that I had the V8's Stkz but cannot find it, so perhaps not.

However, Kosin states that the B-series did not have the ducted spinners. They would also be a little late for Orscha in January - not that the date can be regarded as definite.

If YP is the last two characters of the Stkz we are back to asking why the last letter should have been overpainted, are we not?