Bf 109G-10 (photo)

.

Bf 109G-10 (photo)

Joined: January 26th, 2004, 9:36 pm

April 12th, 2012, 6:13 pm #1

I wish that the Evergreen Museum was as meticulous about their restorations as the Flying Heritage Museum. This Bf109G-10 at the Evergreen Museum looks very nice except for the wheel wells and engine covers. Is RLM02 that hard of a color to match? Even if they wanted it to be glossy instead of matte (easier to keep clean I suppose) they could have matched RLM02 a little better. This isn't even close.





It is better to be the stomper rather than the stompee!
It is better to be the Stomper rather than the Stompee!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 7:41 pm

April 12th, 2012, 6:32 pm #2

Ask Lynn Ritger about this Bf 109G-10 restoration.......
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 26th, 2004, 9:36 pm

April 12th, 2012, 6:36 pm #3



It is better to be the stomper rather than the stompee!
It is better to be the Stomper rather than the Stompee!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 27th, 2004, 5:18 pm

April 12th, 2012, 6:37 pm #4

I wish that the Evergreen Museum was as meticulous about their restorations as the Flying Heritage Museum. This Bf109G-10 at the Evergreen Museum looks very nice except for the wheel wells and engine covers. Is RLM02 that hard of a color to match? Even if they wanted it to be glossy instead of matte (easier to keep clean I suppose) they could have matched RLM02 a little better. This isn't even close.





It is better to be the stomper rather than the stompee!
I did a full walkaround of that bird back in Dec 2005... let's just say the interior is not exactly up to wartime spec. Also, Derek Brown documented the "restoration" of this aircraft in CO in the early 2000s... I was absolutely horrified to hear that the fuselage skins were actually stripped off and DISCARDED. Yes, thrown away.

And of course, both this aircraft and 610824 at the USAFM are wearing completely incorrect schemes; both were wartime veterans of II./JG 52, captured at Neubiberg, but apparently reality just isn't "sexy" enough and the Evergreen one wears the presumed scheme of Hartmann's last G-10 (which was actually an Erla aircraft), while the USAFM one is dressed as a JG 300 bird upon the insistence of the museum head at the time, who actually said he wanted it to be painted as Reich Defense aircraft.

At least the one at Planes of Fame (611943) is in something close to it's wartime markings... it's actually the only surviving Hungarian 109 in the world, having been captured while serving with the 3./101 "Pumas".

Lynn

"History is not 'was', it 'is'." - William Faulkner
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 27th, 2004, 5:18 pm

April 12th, 2012, 6:37 pm #5



It is better to be the stomper rather than the stompee!
................

"History is not 'was', it 'is'." - William Faulkner
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 25th, 2009, 12:54 am

April 12th, 2012, 7:02 pm #6

I did a full walkaround of that bird back in Dec 2005... let's just say the interior is not exactly up to wartime spec. Also, Derek Brown documented the "restoration" of this aircraft in CO in the early 2000s... I was absolutely horrified to hear that the fuselage skins were actually stripped off and DISCARDED. Yes, thrown away.

And of course, both this aircraft and 610824 at the USAFM are wearing completely incorrect schemes; both were wartime veterans of II./JG 52, captured at Neubiberg, but apparently reality just isn't "sexy" enough and the Evergreen one wears the presumed scheme of Hartmann's last G-10 (which was actually an Erla aircraft), while the USAFM one is dressed as a JG 300 bird upon the insistence of the museum head at the time, who actually said he wanted it to be painted as Reich Defense aircraft.

At least the one at Planes of Fame (611943) is in something close to it's wartime markings... it's actually the only surviving Hungarian 109 in the world, having been captured while serving with the 3./101 "Pumas".

Lynn

"History is not 'was', it 'is'." - William Faulkner
indeed it's the pits when personal preference sometimes overrides a common-sense approach to properly displaying wartime aircraft of ANY nation.

Later,

Lee
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 13th, 2009, 7:06 am

April 12th, 2012, 7:13 pm #7

The NASM does the same thing. The fact it is done at NASM really goes against what the Smithsonian(sp?) was set up for. MK.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 27th, 2004, 5:18 pm

April 12th, 2012, 7:25 pm #8

Their G-6, for instance, was finished as an aircraft from the 160xxx WNr block from 7./JG 27 because the actual identity of the airframe was still unknown at the time it was restored in 1974/75. It turns out the restoration team got in the right WNr block with the configuration of the airframe and subsequent research showed the plane to be Darbois' "yellow 4" from 3./JG 4 in a VERY unusual field-applied scheme. When I shot the aircraft for my second book, I spoke at length with the late Tom Dietz about refinishing it, and the simple fact was (and is) that there simply isn't money in the budget to spend on repainting that aircraft, despite the paint peeling up on the stabilizers and other wear evident.

The Zero was also finished in a "probable" scheme, but it was at least narrowed down to one of a group photographed aboard an escort carrier being brought back to the States postwar, where it was known to have been at the time. On the other hand, they've gone to great lengths to get their Ar 234, He 219, Fw 190F, and Gekko correct, along with their Albatros.

I suppose you may have a point on the P-51D, though- I don't think that airframe wears it's actual scheme, but that's definitely the exception to the rule for their collection.

Lynn

"History is not 'was', it 'is'." - William Faulkner
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 22nd, 2005, 11:17 pm

April 12th, 2012, 7:44 pm #9

As good as the overall color scheme is on the NASM Albatros, the 5-color "lozenge" wings are actually from another machine. "Stropp" originally had green/mauve painted wings.

Rich
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 29th, 2007, 2:02 pm

April 12th, 2012, 8:05 pm #10

I did a full walkaround of that bird back in Dec 2005... let's just say the interior is not exactly up to wartime spec. Also, Derek Brown documented the "restoration" of this aircraft in CO in the early 2000s... I was absolutely horrified to hear that the fuselage skins were actually stripped off and DISCARDED. Yes, thrown away.

And of course, both this aircraft and 610824 at the USAFM are wearing completely incorrect schemes; both were wartime veterans of II./JG 52, captured at Neubiberg, but apparently reality just isn't "sexy" enough and the Evergreen one wears the presumed scheme of Hartmann's last G-10 (which was actually an Erla aircraft), while the USAFM one is dressed as a JG 300 bird upon the insistence of the museum head at the time, who actually said he wanted it to be painted as Reich Defense aircraft.

At least the one at Planes of Fame (611943) is in something close to it's wartime markings... it's actually the only surviving Hungarian 109 in the world, having been captured while serving with the 3./101 "Pumas".

Lynn

"History is not 'was', it 'is'." - William Faulkner
... that is just astonishing, as it goes against the entire recognized role a curator is expected to fill. Historical accuracy (as best it can be determined) is the ONLY true objective of ANY real curator. I know this happens far too frequently, but it's still hard to fathom how these "gentlemen" continue to maintain their positions in various aviation museums.

If modellers take more time and care to determine the accurate portrayal of an historically significant aircraft marque in miniature than a person (curator) hired to oversee the restoration of that same actual aircraft is capable of doing, what does it say about the credentials and professional integrity of the self-proclaimed "professional" in the field?

Sorry, rant over.

Norm.

He who dies with the most toys wins!!
Last edited by NormInToronto on April 12th, 2012, 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share