Buscaglia's SM.79 281-5 Wing Insignia Backgrounds-June 1941

Post topics relating to Colors, Camouflage Schemes and Markings of the Regia Aeronautica and ANR
Post Reply
slyle
Pilota
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:34 am
Location: USA

Buscaglia's SM.79 281-5 Wing Insignia Backgrounds-June 1941

Post by slyle » Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:43 am

Hello Gentlemen,

I'm working on a model of Buscaglia's SM.79 "281-5" and was wondering what color the backgrounds should be for the wing insignia. I have been referencing Mr. Lazzaro's excellent articles on this website, and am planning to model the version of 281-5 after it's June 1941 refit, when it was repainted. It looks as though at the point the wing insignia on the wing undersides were transparent -would that also be true on the topsides of the wings?

Thanks very much, Scott
Scott

Stefano
Generale di Brigata Aerea
Generale di Brigata Aerea
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:40 pm
Location: Padua, Italy

Post by Stefano » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:33 am

Thanks Scott for your appreciation.

Yes, wing insignia background became transparent by Spring 1941, due mainly for camo reasons.
Here you can see port wing of 281-5, damaged after the action of 13 October.

Image

Now I can confirm that uppersurfaces too had been repainted: note the different pattern for mottles, typical for Caproni. Also, the wing fasci appear slightly different by the undersides ones: probably they had been re-applied at the unit. Note also the British cockade near the aileron. It marked a patched bullet enemy hole. Such "war scars" were often proudly worn by Italian aircraft.
As for the colours, I currently stand for Verde Mim 3 and Bruno Mim mottles over Giallo Mim 3, with Vitocharts light blue undersurfaces.

Cheers

Stefano

slyle
Pilota
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:34 am
Location: USA

Post by slyle » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:53 am

Thanks Stefano for your reply, and your research!

Can I trouble you to send the photo to my email address (nedc2002@hotmail.com)? I can't view it on the website.

Thanks again, Scott.
Scott

Post Reply