Focke Wulf Fw 190 A-8 "Red 3+-" “Kornjark"

[Milos Gazdic]

Dear all,

I am finishing 1/48 Focke Wulf Fw 190 A-8 WNr.171641 "Rote 3+-" of 5./JG300 named 'Kornjark' and flown by Konrad Bauer in September 1944 (JG300.de puts the aircraft to Erfurt-Bindersleben)

QUESTION 1: First thing that stops me from finishing the model is "Anlaßkraftstoff 3 lt" inscription decal that is clearly visible under the canopy on the port side in the image where Bauer is sitting on the edge of the cockpit (Rodeike's book on page 289, image no. 522) but that is marginal thing at the moment, but does anyone knows the decal sheet that might have this included?

QUESTIONS 2,3 & 4: Rodeike's book on the same page in the image no. 523 shows the aircraft from the port side (showing wavy line on the leading edge of the wing clearly and also showing the a dot of paint application to a cowl armoured ring which could easily be some other colour than standard camouflaged colours). Eagle Cals seems to have based their work on #89 sheet on these two photos (including only port side in their decal sheet instruction, sans ""Anlaßkraftstoff 3 lt" seen under the canopy. DF Loop antenna is not present in this image. Probeller type is not clear in this image since it's rotating.
Further, Falkeeins posts the photo of his blog:http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2014_12_01_archive.html showing starboard side (in the image coming from Jean-Yves Lorant's archive) during the weapons harmonisation. Improperly rotated Swastika on the tail is here more obvious than on the port side image. Strange thing is that fuselage seems much darker & more stained on starboard side image than on the port side one from Rodeike's book, also DF Loop antenna is present in this image. Propeller visible in the shot with sanded tips.
Q2: By some logic, cleaner Port side image should be first in time line & Starboard side one with more stains taken later, but somehow you would expect that antenna is lost on later date? Could it happen that it was lost and placed back together later?
Q3: Also please note how the propeller tips are bright, like the paint peeled away to the bare metal?! Should we assume this is correct or they were painted with some colour?
Q4: Please note that the cowling colour demarcation line is completely straight & top colour seems very dark, making it look different than seen on the image of the port side where it's wavy & a bit brighter. Bottom camo - RLM76 also seems very clean & new, compared to rear part of the aircraft. Can we assume that the power egg was replaced at the later stage but retained the old prop?
Interesting to note in Rodeike's photo no.523 - landing gear seems very bright, almost like it was painted with RLM76 (slightly darker than interior of the covers). Wheel hub on the tail seems not to be black but RLM02, based on image posted on Falkeeins' page.

QUESTION 5: JG300.de page discusses this aircraft on page:http://www.jg300.de/fw-190a-rote-3.html posting two images of the aircraft (same one from Falkeeins' post) and another shot from 10o'clock showing ports side of A-8. This machine seems to carry broad prop while aircraft shown from starboard side seems to have standard metal prop (at least to my eye Mk1). Further it lacks the point on paint on the cowl armour ring & further spots the damaged duct on the side of the cowl compared to Rodeike's images? Also, it seems to lack the stencil applied to landing gear covers, obvious in Rodeike's book. Yes - it has similarly painted leading edge of the wing but... are we here talking about same machine? Spinner also seems different to Rodeike's image. Question goes: if this is NOT "Rote 3+-" on JG300 image - can it be assumed that aircraft flew with standard metal prop?
Back in November 2012, a co-member Max aka Massimiliano asked about the same machine wondering if it has smooth tires? For me it seems that Rodeike's photo has standard tires with "lines" and that JG300.de photo shows a machine with smooth tires...

Maybe Mr. Crandall will be willing to make few comments and also, maybe some of you who researched the given machine and JG300 unit- will have something to add, correct, confirm...

Best regards,
Milos

[Leo Etgen]

Hi Milos

Thank you for your interest in this particular machine. To begin with the small photograph you reference in question five apparently showing the aircraft from the front is included on page 288 of Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug by Rodeike and the caption states this to be presumably a machine of 6./JG 300 at Löbnitz in November 1944 so this is not the same aircraft you are interested in. The apparently darker camouflage on the starboard side is most likely due to the photographic film used and I am quite certain that the camouflage colors were the same on both sides of the fuselage. I agree that it appears that at the very least the upper starboard engine cowling panel and possibly the entire power egg was replaced by the time the starboard photograph was taken. The PR 16 loop antenna was not present when the port side photograph was taken but like the engine cowling question it is impossible to know when this happened. Additionally, note that this aircraft was equipped with erhöhte Notleistung as evidenced by the small yellow circle on the port machine gun cowling and normal metal propeller blades. It also had the normal canopy with the antenna wire pulley tensioning system and as well as the primer fuel fill point had the first aid hatch on the starboard rear fuselage. Early production Fw 190 A-8 series aircraft did not have the primer fuel fill point and late production examples did not have the first aid hatch. It is quite difficult to tell whether treaded or smooth main wheel tires were fitted at the times the two photographs were taken but based on the port side photograph I agree that most likely treaded tires were fitted at that particular time period. I hope this helps and I would be interested in your thoughts on the above points.

Horrido!

Leo

[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

[Milos Gazdic]

I will also copy two posts by DHamel & myself from the same discussion. Hope that is ok too?

DHamel / September 29 2016

You have many questions within your questions and I think I can answer two of them now.
The photo of the spinning propeller reveals the metal blades with the wide bright metal roots that is, to me,the most common type.
The color of the circle on the cowling front ring is a red/brown. That is the dope that is used to cover the hole with a patch. The holes are there to attach the front ring. You will find the same thing on the upper landing gear covers in many other photos.
Will you add the glass cleaners to the windscreen and sides as seen in the photo?

Respond to this message by Milos Gazdic / September 29 2016

After absence of 6-7 years from modeling and aviation there are so many things I would like to find out... and Luftwaffe with it's aircraft & men represents a field where things have been told so many times & still small details pop up here & there showing us new things that we have missed, didn't know... In the time I was away they even discovered that RLM83 is in fact blue! Can you imagine? happy.gif

Anyhow, thanks a lot for your input DHamel! Every answer is highly appreciated to help me with my doubt & gaps in knowledge! And am happy that both you & Steve are confirming my assumption that the aircraft was carrying standard, metal prop.

For the patch on the cowl ring, I have mixed medium brown & red and used that colour (kind of red oxide primer colour).

My canopy is still masked and not attached to the model but yes - I will try to add as many details around cockpit as possible:

© P. Rodeike
1 - Decal for this came from Eagle Cals' sheet
2 - Sourcing the decal for this. Will check my Dora decals and see if I can find it there tonite
3 - There seems to be a bulge on the edge of the gun cover which is not present in my model. Unfortunately - i will NOT be adding this detail sad.gif
4 - Thing that is confusing me the most. There seem to be some part of windshield frame that is detached from main frame and I first time ever see this.
5 - I will try to add these based on image from Squadron's Walkaround

Best,
Milos

[Leo Etgen]

Hi Milos

Many thanks for your response and the link to the discussion on Hyperscale. I am glad that you found the post interesting. I was looking at the two photographs in question showing the two sides of the aircraft and noticed that in the one depicting the port side of the fighter the shadow of the aircraft is very strong suggesting that the sunlight was very bright at that moment and thus the image resulted somewhat overexposed. However, in the one depicting the starboard side of the fighter the shadows appear to be quite weak thereby suggesting that the sunlight was reduced at that moment and thus the image appears naturally darker. Nevertheless, I do agree with you that the area behind the exhaust panel and the edge of the windscreen quarter panel is much darker than the corresponding area on the port side. This appears to me to be the result of over-painting rather than exhaust staining but I very well might be wrong. I have no idea why this was done but perhaps some sort of repair also involving the engine cowling was performed at some point in time? Unfortunately, the loss lists for 1944 have been lost and all we have available are the casualty lists so it is unknown if this aircraft was involved in some sort of incident.

Horrido!

Leo

[Milos Gazdic]

Hello again,

Yes, you're absolutely right:
- Port side shot was done under hard light where sun came from around 8o'clock high casting that sharp shadow.
- Starboard side shot was done on overcast day, and "sun" came from 4-5o'clock, creating that soft shadow.
Both shots seem very precisely exposed & prints seem equally well done. In both shots detail are present both in the deepest shadows & highlights of the white parts of the crosses or glossy spinner spiral...

What makes believe that the darker starboard side is like that because of stains is the fact that even crosses are very dirty and it's quite rare to see aircraft with applied mottling over the crosses.

It's really unfortunate that we don't have any lists from late war years to know if the machine was in some of small accidents between two shots.

Kind regards,
Milos