StefanGebhardt

It's not my intention to highjack this built thread but there are a number of extra photos and a profile documented for this machine in JaPo's Fw 190D camouflage & markings Part II on the pages 334 - 337. According to the authors it belongs the second series Fieseler W.Nr. 600xxx. Stefan

John's theory made me think about the panels. the positioning of them is closely matching the bulks seen on A-8, A-9 and D-11 (link to Miloslav's D-11 built) machines with the outer wing cannons/guns installed. If my theory is right they should be partially visible on the outer side of bulks (even if they are not portrait on models like the Revell A-8). Jerry Crandall is stating in Fw 190 Dora Vol. 2 that the D-12 and D-13 prototypes were based on A-8 frames. This should mean that the outer wing cannons/guns were installed. This means the base plane before adjustments carried the outer wing weaponary. Removing them should logically result in the removal of the upper wing bulk. Probably the panel was a leftover of this configuration. The D-9 on the other side was a variante for mass production without the need for any settings linked to outer wing weaponary. I hope that Jerry or someone else can provide more insight into this topic. Update: JaPo is having some good pics of the D-9 prototypeV68 in Part I. I can't spot the panel in question on these pics. Obviously not many photos of this area exist but a second one, even if it is not as conclusive, does not seems to show the detail either (JaPo Part 2, Page 378 D-9, W.Nr. 601315)

Tomáš Poruba from JaPo released a statement in July last year: We apologize for a long term of our answer. We want to react to your information about "not publishing" of Part III of our Fw 190D Camouflage and Marking study. The info doesn´t came from JaPo. We (JaPo) are sure about a finishing of the study by Part III. We know, the term of making the Part III is long and a lot of our readers doubt about the title. We can only apologize for such long time of work, but again, we plan to finish it. All the time from issuing the Part II (we know, it was in 2007 year...) we are collecting next documents and material to the topic. The phase finished now, we are starting a real work on the Part III. Please, be patient. JaPo It's a long time since the release of the previous volumes but there seems to be still hope...

I think he is aware of it :-) John's 1/32 Zoukei-Mura Ta152H-0 White 7

The need for such extensive cleanup really raises the question what was ZM thinking when they creating the kit. I understand that adding internals make things more complicated but you wouldn’t expect that a the model is so hard to but together... in addition I can’t recall many reviews pointing out these issues or is my memory playing me tricks?

Your input is invaluable for these builds and highly appreciated. Thank you Sir! I assume that the market for the MDC parts was too small....

Here is a second photo with a slightly better resolution showing Hartmann leaving the cockpit. It’s not exactly the same photo but it shows (in my opinion) that the visible parts beside the white are actually the Werks-Camouflage of the plane rather than something painted on top of it - there seems to be different colors visible.

Another interesting is the position of the black tulip, the way the heart underneath the cockpit and the double chevron appear on the photos. All three items seems to be applied AFTER the machine was machine was painted white. My assumption in based on the observation That there seems to be no overpainting spots visible. But this is just my opinion and I could be easily wrong. Still really neat painted tulip, heart and chevrons. Probably helped to be one of the highest scoring pilots left...

I was always wondering if the camouflage 'stripes' were on top of the white paint or actually left out when painting it and should show the underneath color of the factory camouflage... Comments, suggestions?

I updated the post and included all relevant pages.

I am really looking forward to the final result of your work. Great progress so far! Still I thought it is worth to point out that there is, when it comes to the base camouflage of the D-13, a second opinion deviating from Jerry's work. Obviously I am talking about JaPo's analyse published in Volume 2 of Focke Wulf Fw 190D camouflage and markings. Thanks for publishing the instructions for the Eagle Cals (correct me if I am wrong) here, I haven't seen them before. The main difference between Jerry on one side and JaPo on the other is that JaPo starts with a typical camouflaged Dora (two color schema). I am not sure if there will be a second color on the wings, but even then the fuselage itself should have two colours to start with. As a result of this I assume that all stencils etc were overpainted or left out untouched when the 'final' pattern was applied. Keep in mind that the current form of the D-13 as it is displayed right now is not was Jerry imagined it to be. The pattern are way to thick applied and should be way softer and less pronounced. All scans were sourced from: JaPo Focke Wulf Fw 190D camouflage and markings Vol. 2 @Admins: Please let me know or take down the post if there is an issue publishing the scans.

So far I can only find a statement but no proof in form of a picture. That's the reason why I am not fully convinced. It's not my goal to proof you wrong, just wane make sure we got all infos presented. I am happy to discuss this topic in a separate thread. Always good to learn something new every day.

The info is moving us forward BUT I need to challenge you in this case. The first take-offs of a K-4 took place as early as August 11, 1944 (Werksnummer 330103). Other pre-production K-4's at this stage still had engine-mounted MG 152/20 installed (Werksnummer 330112). The first assignment of K-4's took place in as early as of mid-October 1944. All these info were extracted from JaPo's Messerschmitt Bf109 K page 78. Why am I stating this info? The answer is simple and straight forward. A K4 parts manual dated July 1944 does not necessary show the parts used for production starting a month later while in minimum some of these ones (as stated above for 330112) not even used the final armament. I am not saying that the info is not correct, I am just challenging you :-) Is there anyone around having proof in form of a picture that the ejector port is located in the position described by Vincent? Attached is a photo from the same book showing the lower part underneath the MK 108.

There is one specific part to the ejector port for the 30mm shells I don’t understand, especially with the fact in mind that the previous G-models kept the 20mm shells inside. The designer tried to improve the aerodynamic of the plane to improve the max speed and this was most noticeable around the engine/gun area. They pretty much used Erla’s design for the G-10 for the K-4. With all these streamlining in mind I can’t imagine why they would add a ‘hole’ in the bottom of the plane for the 30mm shells. The ejector port for the 13mm are already quite large and we are talking now about a shell more than twice the size. That doesn’t really make sense to me. I am still wondering if JaPo was correct with their statement (previously posted) that the shells were kept inside.

This can't be the only option! Please check the following previously posted photo again and let me know your thoughts. I need to apologise. I found a second picture in the book identifying the machine as a Bf 109 G-10/U4 White 24. This will rule out the photo-evidence for the left side (from the pilots point of view perspective) ejector port for the MK 108. I will update my previous posts accordingly.

Correct me if I am wrong but the suggested positioning is based on the drawings showing the internals but not this specific detail, right? Don‘t get me wrong. I don’t want offend you and your research etc. With this in mind, do you have or do you know any pictures showing the ejector port in the suggested position? What is your opinion on the pic I posted showing the ejector port on the left side of the fuselage from the pilots perspective? Keep the good work going! Stefan

Hi Vincent, Thanks for the quick feedback already BUT I need to challenge you to provide some more details to convince me. As far as I know there are no surviving K-4's out there and the Allies didn't do any evaluation of this specific version because it wasn't 'special' compared to previous models. First and most importantly can you specify the definition of left when it comes to point of view? Do you mean on the left side looking from the propeller backwards (as shown in the part just used as an example to show the modification you made) or do you mean left from the pilot point of view? Can you clarify the item I highlighted above comparing the picture labeled as not showing the K-4 belly with the incorrect position of the ejector port while on the other side replicating the position exactly this way on the model part shown? Do you think that there was just one positioning for the ejector port? If yes how do you explain the picture I posted above which seems to show an ejector port on the left side of the fuselage (from the pilots point of view). Are there any photos available confirming the position of the ejector port as described in your blog entry. Attached are drawing published in JaPo's K-4 book. They are showing to different belly configurations and it isn't clear to me if these are two different possible configurations or whatsoever... Cheers, Stefan

I am following this built closely and I am amazed by the input and help across the board. I am not an expert for the K-4 version but I do have quite a number of books from JaPo covering the subject. One item which puzzles me is the positioning of the ejector port for the MK 108 gun. According to the K-4 Tweak List V1.0 it is missing and it needs to be added to the right side. Here is the quote covering this topic, the relevant part is highlighted: I assume that the described change is based on the description on this side: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/k4bellyvk_1.htm. When it comes to the ejector chute the following picture will be referenced with the quote underneath that it does not show the production version of the K-4: The author is describing the changes made to the belly of the K-4 and here starts the part I don't understand. The changes made to the belly (ejector chute) of the kit are exactly replicating what we see in the prototype picture extracted from a K-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch (which version?). Please have a look at the comparison below. I turned the pic of the modified belly by 180 degree to make it more obvious. The positioning is matching! I managed to find the Werkschrift 2109 K-4 Teil 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - Bf 109 K-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch Stand Oktober 1944, Ausgabe November 1944 (link at the end of the post) and it contains a mirrored version of the photo above. The fact that it shows the mirrored version of the belly has also an impact on the positioning of the extra valve! In addition both versions of the picture does not show the extra pin added to the top of the belly. To add some more confusion I would like to add a quote from the JaPo Messerschmitt 109 K-4 book page 79: I came across a picture of (what I believe is showing an unidentified wingless K-4 parked close to another K-4) showing the ejector chute on the left side of the fuselage (Source: Messerschmitt Bf 109s of JG 52 in Deutsch Brod). Update: The picture below is not showing a K-4 version, instead a G-10. Nevertheless I am also aware that not all K-4 seems to have an ejector port on the left side or at all (?). Is there actually the possibility that there three options in place when it comes to this detail? Ejector chute on the left Ejector chute on the right No ejector chute at all (similar to the G-series) The referenced K-4 manual can be found here: K-4 Manual Thanks Stefan PS. English is obviously not my mother tongue... Don't be to harsh :-)