Mitsubishi G4M Betty

Mitsubishi G4M "Betty"

Topics:

Surrender Betty's

G4M1 in 1/48

Betty with 3 stripes tail marking!

Inside the G4M1

G4M bomb loadouts

Betty's and their bomb bays

Betty's/Color scheme questions

G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question

Blue Bettys?

Yamamoto's G4M Betty (New)

Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai (New)

The aircraft named "Niafu" (New)

G4M Cockpit Questions (New)

Surrender Betty's

Posted By: david kidd <mailto:kiddone@excite.com?subject=surrender bettys>
Date: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 7:26 a.m.

I know the Japanese surrender bettys were white, but was there any specifics about the color? what kind of white? also, any other specific info on these aircraft would be greatly appreciated. I'm building the Hasagawa kit, and already have the green crosses. thanks,

Re: surrender bettys

Posted By: Rob Graham <mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Re: surrender bettys>
Date: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:16 p.m.

In Response To: surrender bettys (david kidd)

David,

In the photos, it is clear the white paint was hurriedly applied over the green camouflage, so you need to go from there. I'd bet that if you paint it as a green plane with Hinomarus and all, then overpaint it with white, it would be more authentic. I'd recommend a standard flat insignia white.

--Rob

G4M1 in 1/48

Posted By: Frank Berger <mailto:frank_berger@directbox.com?subject=G4M1 in 1/48>
Date: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 8:37 a.m.

Hi,
some time ago I bought Tamiya's G4M1 kit. I changed the 7.7MGs
against 5 from Hasegawa together with some ammunition drums. But how to improve the 20mm? Can I also use 60 round drums?

I will load my ship with a bomb load of 60kg and 250kg bombs or one 800kg bomb. Can I use Tamiya's rack for the mixed load (250kg in the middle and 60kg on the sides)? For the heavy load I can't use the rack I think! Will there might be a G4M2 or even G4M2E or another Japanese twin?

Who has photos of G4M racks loaded with bombs?

Re: G4M1 in 1/48

Posted By: Brandon S. Wood <mailto:cali74@gateway.net?subject=Re: G4M1 in 1/48>
Date: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 9:55 a.m.

In Response To: G4M1 in 1/48 (Frank Berger)

As for the technical questions concerning the load and racks, it should be okay with the Tamiya parts (IIRC they allow for this mix with the parts supplied) I think (might be wrong on this one) that there was an aftermarket 20mm out a while back.

I seriously doubt Tamiya will issue any other versions of the G4M or any other twin-engine types for that matter. From what I understand, it was not a real big seller because of the price ($60-70 at most stores, cheaper through mail) and the molds would have been pretty expensive (which was the reason for the high price, kind of a Catch-22). As much as I would love to see a 1/48 G3M from Tamiya, I would be willing to bet that a Vac form is the only one that will see the light of day.

Re: G4M1 in 1/48

Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: G4M1 in 1/48>
Date: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 5:23 p.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M1 in 1/48 (Brandon S. Wood)

Brandon,

According to our local club newsletter, Bill Koster will be releasing a vac-form G3M in 1/48 scale. His kits are REALLY good!

Frank,

The Tamiya 20mm only suffers from a recoil spring housing that is too thin. I built it up by adding six strips of 10 thou plastic sheet around it and puttied in the gaps. I also scratch-built an ammo drum and added a photo-etched rear sight and stretched sprue trigger lever and front sight.

Cheers!

Greg

Re: G4M1 in 1/48

Posted By: Frank Berger <mailto:frank_berger@directbox.com?subject=Re: G4M1 in 1/48>
Date: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 11:29 p.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M1 in 1/48 (Greg Springer)

Brandon
You may mean the 20mm offered by Fine Molds. But at the moment I'm not sure if theirs isn't a Type 2 (belt). One year ago I paid no more than 33 Dollars for my cigar! I use True Detail wheels and the Eduard set. In Model Art No.410 page 103 is a picture of a G3M with the bomb load I wanna hang on my bird. On page 110 the bomb seems to hang more inside the fuselage than possible with the Tamiya parts! I have cut the outer parts of the tail position for a clear field of fire.
The HG 7.7 MGs with correct size look much more better!!!!!

Betty with 3 stripes tail marking!

Posted By: Elephtheriou George <mailto:elgeorge@otenet.gr?subject=Betty with 3 stripes tail marking!>
Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 3:14 p.m.

Konnichi wa all,
In a FANTASTIC "Gojinsha" book called simply "Zero Fighter" (kindly provided by a very good friend. Danke again) there is a photo of a Betty with a 3 horizontal stripe tail marking and what seems like a number beneath it. The location is "Barare" (in Japanese pronunciation). Never heard of such an island before, the time about 1943.

Now, since I've never seen such a tail marking on a Betty before, does anybody have any ideas?

Domo
George

Re: Betty with 3 stripes tail marking!

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty with 3 stripes tail marking!>
Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 12:01 p.m.

In Response To: Betty with 3 stripes tail marking! (Elephtheriou George)

George

There were several Betty units in the area during this time frame. It probably belonged to 702 ku.

"Barare" is Japanese phonetic for the island of Ballale in the Shortland group south of Bougainville (directly south of the base known as Buin at Kahili or Kihili Plantation) on the southern end of Bougainville. This was the first stop on Admiral YAMAMOTO's itinerary 18 April 1943. He was in a Betty from 705 ku. 751 ku was also in the vicinity.

Jim Lansdale

Re: Betty with 3 stripes tail marking!

Posted By: Elephtheriou George <mailto:elgeorge@otenet.gr?subject=Re: Betty with 3 stripes tail marking!>
Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 1:31 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty with 3 stripes tail marking! (James F. Lansdale)

Lansdale sama,
domo arigato gozaimashita for both. The Betty issue and the "clear varnish" issue.
This binder was colorless and didn't effect the hairyokushoku?

Thank you also for the Ballale. Sometimes Katakana are so difficult to imagine what they are talking about. The base was made by the Japanese or existed before they occupied the island?

Thank you again
George

Re: Paint Binder-Color Shift

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Paint Binder-Color Shift>
Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 1:55 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty with 3 stripes tail marking! (Elephtheriou George)

Hi George

You ask, "This binder was colorless and didn't effect the hairyokushoku?"

Originally it was clear. Aging may have caused some color shift and/or darkening. Spectographic and x-ray analysis by the Conservation Analysis Laboratory of the Smithsonian Institution resulted in their conclusion that the color shift was minimal and the colors of unweathered relics were essentially the same as when recovered.

You also asked," The base was made by the Japanese or existed before they occupied the island?"

Ballale airbase was constructed by the Japanese when they occupied the island of Ballale. The airfield effectively covered the entire tiny island and made a easy target for bombing!

Jim Lansdale

Inside the G4M1

Posted By: Frank Chr. Berger <mailto:frank_berger@directbox.com?subject=Inside the G4M1>
Date: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 1:29 p.m.

Hi guys,

Where to find information (correct drawings) of those part
of the inner fuselage of the G4M1 (Tamiya) which isn't included in the kit?
How about the quality of the True Details cockpit for this kit?

Frank

Re: Inside the G4M1

Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re: Inside the G4M1>
Date: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 3:57 p.m.

In Response To: Inside the G4M1 (Frank Chr. Berger)

Frank,

The TD set is no longer available. Your next best bet is the Teknics (tk4862) set. I believe the Roll Models does carry them.

-Dave

Re: Inside the G4M1

Posted By: Randy <mailto:r.stone.eal@juno.com?subject=Re: Inside the G4M1>
Date: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 4:34 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Inside the G4M1 (Dave Pluth)

Hi All:

Not that it matters much at the 1/48th level, but when I was cleaning out and helping what little I did on the G4M at the Planes of Fame, you would be surprised at the amount of corrugated metal installed within the fuselage. Obviously, placed there for strength much of the material between the crossmembers was devoted to corrugation. Having been exposed to the elements for so many years I can not give any information about colors but it sure was nice to see what the interior of the structure was like.

Randy

Re: Inside the G4M1

Posted By: Gary <mailto:TOMIAN@webtv.net?subject=Re: Inside the G4M1>
Date: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 3:13 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Inside the G4M1 (Grant Goodale)

Hi Grant,

I have built my G4M1 with the complete interior. I have even opened the entry door. I am supposed to have a review ready for the ARC website, but other projects got in the way.

I have info on the floor with the size that I used. I can send you the info as well as the material list. As for the detail sets, IMO you should save your money and try to get the Teknics set. I used most of this as well as the Eduard PE set. The details on the TD set is way too soft, especially in the seat details, you could do better with the kit seats and PE seatbelts.

With the floor, I found material that duplicated the kit floor and I have the runners there as well.
I should write that review and post it on ARC as well as here. Let me send a test shot, maybe Sunday. Drop me a line.

HTH

Gary

G4M bomb loadouts.

Posted By: Jomo Stewart <mailto:Silo_FT@hotmail.com?subject=G4M bomb loadouts.>
Date: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 1:13 p.m.

Hello,

I stumbled across this board looking for informantion on the G4M2. You guys seem very knowlegeable, so maybe you can help me.

Could the G4M2 carry any other loadouts other than 1xTorpedo, 1x800kg bomb, 4x250 kg??

Did the Betty carry any lighter bombs, like 50kg or 100kg??

Re: G4M bomb loadouts.

Posted By: Garth <mailto:garth.o'connell@awm.gov.au?subject=Re: G4M bomb loadouts.>
Date: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 3:29 p.m.

In Response To: G4M bomb loadouts. (Jomo Stewart)

I believe they could carry a loadout consisting of 50kg bombs as well, I am sure the more knowledgable here could answer with some authority.

Are you siloft from WB? I'm kkoori - 456 Squadron RAAF. :)

Re: G4M bomb loadouts.

Posted By: Jim Broshot <mailto:jbroshot@socket.net?subject=Re: G4M bomb loadouts.>
Date: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 5:43 p.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M bomb loadouts. (Jomo Stewart)

Perhaps not. This from a cutaway drawing of a G4M2A in AIR INTERNATIONAL for Dec 1984:

12x 50kg (110lb) bombs, carried 4x3 OR
4x 250kg (550lb) bombs, carried 2x2 OR
2x 500kg (1,102lb) bombs OR
1x "naval torpedo" OR
1x 800kg (1,764lb) bomb

Re: G4M bomb loadouts.

Posted By: Rick Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: G4M bomb loadouts.>
Date: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:56 p.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M bomb loadouts. (Jim Broshot)

Notwithstanding some published reports (e.g. Warbirds International Dec 1984) which agree with Jim's figures, 12x50 was not a G4M bomb load. The standard Navy weapon was 60 kg. Thus 12x60 was a nominal load. 50 kg was the standard bomb of the JAAF. Some units did not carry more than 10x60 for "safety" reasons. Mixed loads such as 1x250 and 6x60 were also used (e.g. 12 Sep 42 Kisaratsu, Misawa and Chitose Groups against Guadalcanal). 6x60 was very common on patrol (armed recon) missions in the Solomons in 1943.

Regards,

Rick

Re: G4M bomb loadouts.

Posted By: Richard Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: G4M bomb loadouts.>
Date: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 7:33 a.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M bomb loadouts. (Jomo Stewart)

Jomo

I don't know the configuration of the mixed load mentioned in my earlier response. It is documented in Lundstrom, The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaignm. He gives as his source the unit records (kodochosho's) in The Japanese War History Office.

With regard to latter messages, I concur that bomb doors were removed by load crews when a torpedo was to be carried. Don't know about 800kg bombs. I believe aircraft could be (but weren't always) flown with doors in place when smaller bombs were carried. However, Janes, All the World's Aircraft 1945 ed. says doors were removed when bombs or torpedoes were carried. Makes one wonder why buldged doors were fitted to late model G4M's. Numerous photos seem to depict G4M's in formation en route to a target with bomb doors in place.

Rick Dunn

Re: G4M bomb loadouts.

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: G4M bomb loadouts.>
Date: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 8:43 a.m.

In Response To: (Richard Dunn)

Rick

From what I have read, the Betty had no mechanism for opening and closing the bomb bay door in flight. That is why they were removed for all bombing operations. I do believe that they were left on for torpedo missions as the torpedo was carried externally, mounted on pylons. I thing the late model bulges were added to accomodate the attachment mechanism for the Okha but I could be wrong.

As for the photo captions, one must always be careful of the source since an author might use a convenient photo to illustrate the action in the text, even though the photo is not directly related to the text.

IMHO

Grant

Re: G4M bomb loadouts.

Posted By: Richard Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: G4M bomb loadouts.>
Date: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 1:14 a.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M bomb loadouts. (Grant Goodale)

Grant

Another take on the torpedo configuration. In the famous photo which pictures four G4M's of 4th Ku during the Guadalcanal torpedo attack on August 8th, 1942, the aircraft nearest the camera can be seen not to have bomb doors attached from the humped geometry of the under surface of the fuselage. Don't know whether that picture was taken before of after torpedoes were launched but in that instance torpedoes,yes, doors, no. You probably know the photo. The nearest G4M is so low you can see its refection in the water. Photo was first published in the original printing of Guadalcanal Diary in early 1943.

Now for some perspective on the question of why doors if they were removed (pure speculation). The G3M carried its bomb load exclusively in external racks. An internal bomb bay was a step forward even without doors (which configuration apparently cost about 10 knots in speed). The G4M could fly patrol missions, transfer flights and act as a transport with doors in place. Okay not a very satisfying answer. Don't really know the design philosophy involved here. As I non-expert on the G4M, I've really gotten into the realm of saying more than I know. Interesting, none the less.

Rick Dunn

Re: G4M bomb loadouts.

Posted By: Richard Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: G4M bomb loadouts.>
Date: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 10:40 a.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M bomb loadouts. (Grant Goodale)

Grant

Hmmm. Don't think the bulges had anything to do with Ohka. These were introduced in the G4M2 which flew in prototype form in Nov 42 long before anybody thought about Ohka. According to Green's Famous Bombers "the bomb bay was redesigned and enlarged.."

Also don't think the torpedo was carried externally. According to an article in Warbirds International: "but the size of the fuselage was influenced by the need to provide space beneath the wing carry-through structure for a weapons bay capable of housing a Type 97 kai torpedo..."

You may well be right about there being no mechanism to operate the doors in flight.According to the POW interrogation (report No. 131, POW No. 14554) of Naganori Furayama a gunner on a G4M of 702 Ku shot down in June 43: "There were no bomb doors on this aircraft. They had been removed before they left Japan as they got in the way. There was no mechanism to operate them. He did not know why they were fitted in the first place."

Possibly no mechanism on the G4M1 but maybe on the enlarged bomb bay of the G4M2?

Interesting exchange. Thanks.

Rick Dunn

Re: BTW, about G4M bomb doors.

Posted By: Randy
Date: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 4:29 p.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M bomb loadouts. (Jomo Stewart)

Hi All:

And while we're in the neighborhood what about those removed bomb doors.

What was the purpose? who performed the door removals (field or factory)? and what Models and units were affected?

Thanks,

Randy

Re: BTW, about G4M bomb doors.

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: BTW, about G4M bomb doors.>
Date: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 7:22 a.m.

In Response To: Re: BTW, about G4M bomb doors. (Randy)

Randy

Removal of the bomb door was required since there was no bomb door opening mechanism while in flight. This removal did no favours for the aerodynamics of the a/c, especially when fully loaded.

The bomb doors would be left on for ferry, transport or recon missions.

Grant

Re: BTW, about G4M bomb doors.

Posted By: Jim Broshot <mailto:jbroshot@socket.net?subject=Re: BTW, about G4M bomb doors.>
Date: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 7:34 a.m.

In Response To: Re: BTW, about G4M bomb doors. (Grant Goodale)

From an article in AIR INTERNATIONAL/December 1984

"The third prototype of the G4M2 featured redesigned weapons bay doors, these being bulged and sliding inwards. The G4M1 had experienced considerable trouble with its weapons bay doors which had generated considerable drag when opened and frequently malfunctioned. In consequence, these doors were often discraded on operations. The new doors were to prove efficacious and were adopted with the 65th and subsequent G4M2 aircraft."

Betty's and their bomb bays

Posted By: Chuck Nimsk <mailto:cnimsk@aol.com?subject=Betty's and their bomb bays>
Date: Saturday, 17 February 2001, at 9:53 a.m.

Okay, here's another question I have.

Some time ago, I built Tamiya's beautiful G4M1. I built it as Lt. Iki's aircraft - with torpedo. Question: Should that aircraft have the partial bomb bay door removel "system" or should if have the bomb bay doors completely removed?

Every picture I've seen....mainly from circa Guadalcanal...shows the distinctive broken back appearance to Betty's on torpedo attacks. The only earlier pictures I have, or seen...circa December 1941 are of bombing attack aircarft. So....I still have that piece...should I install it or leave it off?

Thanks,
Chuck Nimsk

Re: Betties and their bomb bays

Posted By: Chuck Nimsk <mailto:cnimsk@aol.com?subject=Re: Betties and their bomb bays>
Date: Saturday, 17 February 2001, at 12:30 p.m.

In Response To: Betties and their bomb bays (Tom Hall)

The G4M1 Model 11 did not have bomb bay doors per say, at least not opening ones anway. What happend was, with bombs, the took the entire assembly off and the aircraft flew that way. On a reconnaissance mission, the doors were left on, I guess to improve the aerodynamics and hence the range of the aircraft. On torpedo mission, supposedly...only the central part of the assembly was removed. I've always thought that, given the nature of war and the lack of time eveyone tends to have, that if I were a ground crew, I would have just left the whole thing off whether the aircraft was carrying bombs or torpedoes simply because it took too much time and effort to keep switching back and forth. Besides...loading orders tend to get changed on a moments notice.

Chuck

Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: Chuck Nimsk <mailto:cnimsk@aol.com?subject=Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Sunday, 25 February 2001, at 12:55 p.m.

Hello again.

Time for another probably stupid question, okay questions, but here goes anyway...

Tamiya's G4M1 kit. Lt. Iki's aircraft. Kit instructions call for using Tamiya's IJA Dark Green (AS-17 Tamiya number)and Tamiya TS-1(XF-64) Red Brown on the upper surfaces and Tamiya IJN Light Grey (AS-2) on the under surfaces with semi-gloss black for the anti-glare panels.

Questions: Why were Japanese Navy aircraft using Japanese Army paints?

It is my understanding that early G4M1's were delivered in natural metal, then at some point repainted prior to December 7th, 1941. It is also my understanding that the Kanoya Group (Kokutai) received their G4M1's in approximately September of 1941.

Where these aircraft field camouflaged? Or delivered from the factory in the Green/Brown scheme? Did they use the black/blue cowling color that Mitsubishi used on it's Zeros?

Does anyone have any idea just when the Japanese Navy began painting it's aircraft upper surfaces green to begin with? I assume (bad thing) that the light grey should be grey-green? Actually, with my eyes, the Tamiya color has a grey-green hue to it....

Just as a W.A.G....could it be that they used Army paints because the Navy Green was in short supply? And could a shortage of Navy Green explain the fact that the B5N2's on the Shokaku were dabbled/swirled with green rather than having their upper surfaces completely painted?

One more question...concerning markings...Iki's G4M1 has the tail code K-310. My understanding is that he was the equivilant of a "squadron" (Chutai) commander. Should that code be 301 instead? I've assumed (always a bad thing to do!) that the code more or less meant Kanoya Kokutai..3rd Chutai and then the number of the aircraft in the Chutai .... I would think that the "squadron" leader would have the first aircraft in the Chutai. Or should I read this right to left?

Just curious. If anyone has answers to these or any other questions it would be nice to know what they are. Speculation is welcome! (Obviously I have way to much free time on my hands - or I'm avoiding doing what needs to be done instead!)

Chuck Nimsk

Betty's First Dark Green

Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Betty's First Dark Green>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 7:52 a.m.

In Response To: Betty's/Color scheme questions (Chuck Nimsk)

Dear Mr. Nimsk,

I think that the factory began painting the upper surfaces of Betty dark green as early as March 1942, perhaps earlier. The reason I say so is that a Betty of the 4th Ku made a water landing at the Deboyne Atoll on May 7, 1942, during the Battle of the Coral Sea. There is a photo of the wreck in the US National Archives, and its upper surfaces are a solid, dark color. Now, you might remind me that the 4th Ku used a very dark brown, and that it might be indistinguishable from dark green in a B & W photo. Okay. You might also imagine that the plane was repainted to cover some brown with dark green. The reason I think it had a factory paint job is that I have examined skin from it and it has primer on the outside of it. As I recall, it's where camo would have been. If the factory didn't apply kumogata, then it must have been the solid dark green + anti-glare. I am fairly sure the plane which crashed-landed at Deboyne was one of the replacement planes which the 4th Ku received following the debacle of February against USS Lexington.

Re: Betty's First Dark Green

Posted By: Chuck Nimsk <mailto:cnimsk@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty's First Dark Green>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 8:01 a.m.

In Response To: Betty's First Dark Green (Tom Hall)

Tom,

Thank you for the information. Interesting. What about the undersurfaces? Were they in light grey/grey-green, heck..414317 concrete? Or were they in natural metal? Just curious because of the data that Francois Weil has sent me indicating a natural metal was most likely on Betty's circa that time frame.

Again, thank you for your response.

Chuck

Kumogata camouflage

Posted By: Mike Yeo <mailto:mikeyeo@bigpond.com?subject=Kumogata camouflage>
Date: Wednesday, 14 March 2001, at 6:23 a.m.

Just to verify the undersurface of this camouflage scheme on IJN land based bombers. Was the undersurface colour IJN grey or bare metal?

Mike

Re: Betty's Underside

Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty's Underside>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 6:39 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's First Dark Green (Chuck Nimsk)

I know of only two schemes for the underside of a Model 11 Betty:

Day- natural metal & silver

Night- black or other dark colors

I don't think the night scheme came along until 1943. There was no underside to the wreckage I saw.

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 12:58 a.m.

In Response To: (Chuck Nimsk)

Hi Chuck,

You wrote:

>> Tamiya's G4M1 kit. Lt. Iki's aircraft. Kit instructions call for using Tamiya's IJA Dark Green (AS-17 Tamiya number)and Tamiya TS-1(XF-64) Red Brown on the upper surfaces and Tamiya IJN Light Grey (AS-2) on the under surfaces with semi-gloss black for the anti-glare panels.

Questions: Why were Japanese Navy aircraft using Japanese Army paints?

Tamiya instructions are 100% wrong if interpreted literally.

Heavy bombers from China until sometimes in the summer 1942 were camouflaged in the so-called Kumogata (cloud-like) scheme. this was by any mean a NAVY scheme but never a factory applied one.

As far as the colors used are concerned, we have not yet recovered samples but here are what could be extracted:

The green: recently a Pearl Harbor Kate relic (from the "Hospital Kate") was analyzed and the conclusion came as the green used on the uppersurface, when thick enough to be opaque was matched with FS 34084 green. As this green was hurridely applied just before the operation began it is more than likely the color used was whatever was conveniently at hand. The only finish with green paint in use in the IJNAF at this time was the green from Kumogata camouflage. So it is reasonable to suppose the green used in Kummogata camouflage (which as a unit level applied color was IJNAF procured and probably the same for all the planes using that scheme). Consequently, the best guess for Kumogata green is a green matching FS 34084. the fact it is a green with perhaps more brown in it than the later greens used by the IJNAF seems normal as it was chiefly a land mass camouflage to be used over continental China. Perhaps Tamiya paint, allegedly an Army shade, is near to that green, but in no case Army colors were used on those planes. The brown is not really known because no samples have been analyzed yet but many Japanese publications call for something in the FS 30045 range.

Antilglare areas were FACTORY painted the Mitsubishi way, so BLUE-BLACK like any IJNAF Mitsubishi built aircraft.

For the undersurfaces problem see lower.

>> It is my understanding that early G4M1's were delivered in natural metal, then at some point repainted prior to December 7th, 1941. It is also my understanding that the Kanoya Group (Kokutai) received their G4M1's in approximately September of 1941.<<

You are right to suppose they were delivered (until sometimes in the summer 42) bare metal with only Hinomaurs and antiglare areas factory painted. But their undersurfaces were NEVER painted at all an remained bare metal. Through the surface oxydation of the aluminum alloy this appears to be gray on the pictures but as samples demontrate, they were in fact bare metal under in service. The use of the so-called IJN gray (or its actual gray-green variants) on both G3M and G4M is a MYTH.

But you're wrong for the date they began to be unit painted in Kumogata scheme (without primer which lead to a lot of flaking). The Kumogata scheme appeared early in the China campaign and all the heavies were painted that way since that date. This camouflage stood regulation for them until the summer 1942.

>> Where these aircraft field camouflaged? Or delivered from the factory in the Green/Brown scheme? Did they use the black/blue cowling color that Mitsubishi used on it's Zeros? <<

They were painted at depot or unit level by the IJNAF and not factory painted. The use of blue black for antiglare areas was a Mitsubishi practice which emcompassed the MITSUBISHI produced Zeros but any also any other Mitsubishi product for the Navy. NOT ALL Zeros were concerned though as Nakajima built ones used the more common (all other manufacturers did so) GRAY-BLACK paint.

>> Does anyone have any idea just when the Japanese Navy began painting it's aircraft upper surfaces green to begin with? I assume (bad thing) that the light grey should be grey-green? Actually, with my eyes, the Tamiya color has a grey-green hue to it.... <<

The first use of dark green uppersurfaces on IJNAF planes dates back to the 1920's though it was not the same shade as those used later. The scheme was akin to WW1 British one (Dk. Green on clear doped linen). But the first "modern" use of a dark green belongs to the Kumogata scheme used during the "China Incident" and was probably applied very early after the hostilities began. The solid dark green seem to have been first used on Kates with their Pearl Harbor makeshift scheme. Soon after the beginning of the hostilities, all frontline aircraft but fighters (offensive scheme of Hairyokushoku) and Heavies and land transports (Kumogata)began to use a solid coat of defensive green, first field applied (hence probably 34084) and then factory applied (generally on primer this time, with specific manufacturer shade). As far a the heavies were concerned a factory scheme of Dk. Green (applied on primer then, relics available) was aplied and G4M1 Model 11 reaching units in the late summer 1942 were so finished. An attempt to uniformize the appearance of the older Kumogata finished planes with the newcomer's solid factory applied green was done. It failed to reach its target because it seems that the planes were only partly reconditioned and the old limits showed. Whether it was due to the difference of age of the paint or (more probably) because the Mitsubishi green (34052) was used to recondition the brown areas only. Another interesting thing is that this reconditioning was done on unprimed paint and peeling was present on "old" planes when the solid factory applied on primer green (Mitsubishi green : FS 34052) adhered much better and didn't present any such flakes.

But whatever was the origin of the plane, they were all bare metal under.

Later when the G4M2 entered production, because of restriction the primer was no more used even at the factory and the solid green uppersurfaces peeled like the old Kumogata scheme. Notice that some planes in this period were "night" camouflaged at the factory by extending the uppersurface color to the lower surfaces. When Mitsubishi factory reverted to day scheme, some units performed the same kind of extension. From some pictures it appears that units didn't ever matched the green used on undersurfaces to the one on the uppersurfaces (this appeared on some not so used planes and may indicate this was not the effect of a fresher paint). Some authors go as far as to think black might have been used instead.

>> Just as a W.A.G....could it be that they used Army paints because the Navy Green was in short supply? And could a shortage of Navy Green explain the fact that the B5N2's on the Shokaku were dabbled/swirled with green rather than having their upper surfaces completely painted?<<

NO... Tamiya used the nearest reference in its own range and this has absolutely NO HISTORCAL VALUE.

>> One more question...concerning markings...Iki's G4M1 has the tail code K-310. My understanding is that he was the equivilant of a "squadron" (Chutai) commander. Should that code be 301 instead? I've assumed (always a bad thing to do!) that the code more or less meant Kanoya Kokutai..3rd Chutai and then the number of the aircraft in the Chutai .... I would think that the "squadron" leader would have the first aircraft in the Chutai. Or should I read this right to left?

No ... by the way Chutai belongs to Army vocabulary. In the IJNAF you have to say Hikotai instead. K means Kanoya Kokutai 3 means it is a bomber, 10 means plane #10 in the Kokutai. Though the practice to use a plane number related to the unit leader such as for example K-301 for the Kokutai leader was sometimes widespread (mainly in fighter and carrier born units) this is by no mean a common practice for the heavies.

>> Just curious. If anyone has answers to these or any other questions it would be nice to know what they are. Speculation is welcome! (Obviously I have way to much free time on my hands - or I'm avoiding doing what needs to be done instead!) <<

I hope it helps

François

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: CJ Martin <mailto:starfighter33@home.com?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Wednesday, 28 February 2001, at 5:32 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (François P. WEILL)

Great stuff!

One question about the natural metal undersurfaces...was the demarcation between the upper surfaces paint and the lower surfaces natural metal a hard edge (i.e. masked), or was it feathered?

Thanks!

-CJ

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: Osamu Tagaya <mailto:osamutagaya@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 3:42 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (François P. WEILL)

Cher M. Francois,

I am in complete agreement with you regarding bare metal undersurfaces. However, I would take issue with your date for start of solid green uppersurface camouflage for the Type 1 Rikko. I would concur with Tom Hall concerning an earlier start date.

The earliest photo I have seen, showing a solid green upper camouflaged Model 11, for which a specific date exists, was published in one of the Maru special editions a few years ago. According to them, the photo comes from the personal album of Takahide AIOI, former hikotaicho of 3rd Kokutai. It shows a solid green upper camouflage machine of Takao Ku [T-361] said to be taken at Koepang, Timor on March 11, 1942. Also, the old FAOW issue on Betty (No. 60 in the old series c. 1970, not the new one No. 59) shows a line-up of Takao Ku Bettys at Clark Field with a mixture of finishes, somer in old (heavily weathered by this time) kumogata scheme, as well as some in solid green pattern, seemingly fresh. The caption to the photo says Rabaul, but this is in error. One of the photos in the series shows the unmistakeable outlines of Mt. Arayat in the background. Knowing what we know of Takao Ku operations, this photo would have to have been taken in March/April 1942. Finally, the photo of the plane at Deboyne Reef, to which Tom Hall alludes, is definitely a casualty of the attack on R. Adm. Crace's cruiser force on May 7, 1942 during the Battle of the Coral Sea.

From the foregoing, I would venture to say that Model 11 Bettys with solid green uppersurface camouflage began rolling off the production line at least as early as sometime in February 1942.

Amicalement,

Osamu Tagaya

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 11:51 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (Osamu Tagaya)

Konnichiwa Tagaya San

A great thanks to you and Tom for the precision ...

However, do you know if the color of these early examples were matched to FS or Munsell standards?

Frinedly.

François

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions *PIC*>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 7:22 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (Osamu Tagaya)

Hi Sam

Ditto for me!!!

I have a photo which was provided by Juzo NAKAMURA. Another copy is in the NASM collection. The NAKAMURA caption stated that this flight of Takao ku Mitsubishi G4M1 Betty bombers was taken on a bombing mission to China "prior" to the attack on the Philippines as the formation crossed the China coast. Several aircraft in this flight were NMF with "red tails" (?!!!) and others appear to be painted dark green overall on the upper surfaces. The unit code [T-3..] was removed by the censor on the near aircraft, but can still be made out on the distant aircraft.

If this caption is correct (and I am not certain it is!), the so-called "kumogata" field-applied scheme may have been applied subsequent to the overall dark green upper surface !!!

FWIW

Jim Lansdale

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: Osamu Tagaya <mailto:osamutagaya@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Wednesday, 28 February 2001, at 11:53 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Hi Jim,
A much published photo to be sure, but I have never seen convincing proof as to exactly where and when it was taken. Personally, I would like to defer any judgement until such data surfaces, at least to my satisfaction.

Sam

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 10:24 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (François P. WEILL)

Francois -

Thanks for supplying that information to us. However, I am a little confused on one point. You make a few references to the fact that the G4M's were not primed. Perhaps I misunderstood the posting. Another posting in this thread by Tom Hall states that he has a Betty relic which shows primed metal. In the Walk Around section of this board there are some photos of a Betty in a museum (see link below) that, to me, shows evidence of primer. Could this be due to "creativity" on the part of the museum or was primer used only at certain times ?

TIA

- Grant

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/dave_pluth/g4mpit2.htm

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 12:22 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (Grant Goodale)

Hi Grant

To simplify things:

Kumogata finished G4M1 Model 11 remained UNPRIMED and were delivered to IJNAF in bare metal scheme (fabric covered surfaces in aluminum dope).

Then solid Green uppersurfaces G4M1 Model 11 (that some other G4M1 Model actually entered active service is still under debate) WERE PRIMED (green was factory fiish, state of the art).

Then when G4M2 (Model 22 and 24) and G4M3 Model 34 were produced in quantity the restrictions were applied and the primer no more a component of the production process.

Hence Tom is right (and I so myself a sample so finished, courtesy of Jim Lansdale) about the Model 11 when they were factory painted in solid green ....

Hope it helps

François

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: Osamu Tagaya <mailto:osamutagaya@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Friday, 2 March 2001, at 10:12 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (CJ Martin)

Vast majority had a hard (i.e. straight)demarcation line, but photo evidence shows some with wavy (scalloped) separation.

Sam

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: Hal Tippins <mailto:roachamatic@yahoo.com?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Friday, 2 March 2001, at 1:36 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (Osamu Tagaya)

Several years ago, at the Blue Angel Modelfest, there was an artist selling prints of Butch Ohares victories over the "BETTIES" attempting to bomb his carrier. Of note was the fact that he painted the Betties OVERALL dark green. I asked him about this unconventional color scheme. His reply was that it was based on the memory of a surviving ground crew member from the Japanese Squadron. Recently, I saw a picture of the Squadron Commanders Bettie crashing very close to the Lexington and I must say there appears no contrast between the top and bottom of the plane. Any ideas about this???

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions *PIC*>
Date: Friday, 2 March 2001, at 2:25 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (Hal Tippins)

Hi Hal

Lt.Cdr. ITO, Takuzo led the No.4 Kokutai attack in question. A series of photos were taken of his aircraft going down minus the port engine.

The photos are poor in quality with heavy shadows, however they do show a contrast between the upper surface color (darker) and the lower surface along the lower starboard wing and rear fuselage. The nose is also in shadow.

It appears from other details visible in this series, that the ITO Betty was painted in a kumogata (two tone upper surface) scheme with two horizontal stripes above the [F-3..] No.4 Ku code on the tail.

IHTH

Jim Lansdale

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Monday, 5 March 2001, at 1:29 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (Osamu Tagaya)

Dear friends,

Following Jim Lansdale’s message on very early Takao Kû. solid green uppersurface Betty allegedly (from the photo caption) pre-Pacific war use, I took some times to see if I could find another or other image(s).

Finally I located one in Betty's FAOW book (page 27, lower pic).

This image is dated September 1942 at Rabaul Vunakanau airfield.

You'll notice T 315 is still in very weathered Kumogata scheme... Other aircraft in the back ground give about the same look Jim consider to be bare metal with red tail, but lok carefully and you will see the Kumogata is present and only the inability of the original pic. to restitute the contrast is responsible for the effect. The rudder-fin assembly of all planes, including the more defined T-315 are dark (consequence of the orientation of this part from the light source).

I've thoroughly examined the pic. allegedly taken in a late mission over China before the Pacific war broke out Jim produced on the board.

My conclusions are as follows:

The pic. is extremely contrasty and of very poor quality (even when tweaking it under Photoshop). On the contrary to what Jim believed the apparently bare metal planes are camouflaged (most probably Kumogata but this doesn't appear because of sun glare and poor film exposure and processing and because the Kumogata was very weathered and the metal reflected through it) and their rudder and fin are dark not because of any "red security color" but because they form a shadowed area, just like the on the other pic . The foreground plane is effectively in solid green scheme.

So whether the Takao Ku used at least ONE test camouflaged Betty (camouflaged at unit level in dark green) or the pic. was taken MUCH later when both camouflage scheme co-existed in the same formation (in the Solomon Islands) and the date and location indicated are erroneous...

My feeling is that the second hypothesis is the right one...

Like our friend, Osamu, I still think, unless more hard evidence surfaces, that the Kumogata scheme preceded the solid dk. green and was to appear on heavies only during spring 1942.

Friendly.

François

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: Chuck Nimsk <mailto:cnimsk@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Friday, 2 March 2001, at 2:21 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (Hal Tippins)

For whatever it's worth...

The only pictures I've seen of that attack is in John Lundstrom's "The First Team" on page 105. There are two different frames on that page. To my eye, in the second frame showing the aircraft diving towards the ocean below, there does appear to be a contrast between top and bottom on the right engine and back towards the rear of the fuselage. Also of note is the apparent two-tone camoflage on the top of the aircraft and apparently three command stripes on the tail of the aircraft, two slim ones above and a fatter one below. I cannot see any unit code on the tail of the aircraft. I'm curious to know if anyone has anymore information on this series of pictures and more information on the scheme used by those aircraft.

Chuck Nimsk

Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions

Posted By: Osamu Tagaya <mailto:osamutagaya@aol.com?subject=Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions>
Date: Monday, 5 March 2001, at 10:16 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty's/Color scheme questions (François P. WEILL)

Francois,

I agree with you regarding sequence of schemes. I am very skeptical of the idea that dark green upper preceded kumogata. As for photo posted by Jim Lansdale, my own guess is that it was taken during late spring 1942, possibly during mission to Darwin, Australia. I would also agree that aircraft in background are probably weathered kumogata, not natural metal with red tails. (Just my speculation, however. I have no proof either way.)

I would point out, however, that the caption to photo of T-315 which you mention from FAOW p. 27 bottom is incorrect. Photo was not taken at Rabaul c. Sept. 1942. As I mentioned in my earlier posting of 27 Feb., this is one of a series of photos taken at Clark Field c. March/April 1942. The solid green upper camouflaged machine is not a one off. The old FAOW Betty book published in the 1970s (No. 60 in the old series) has a shot toward the back of the book showing several aircraft of what I believe to be Takao Ku's 3rd Chutai (two horizontal stripes)in solid green uppersurface camo with Mt. Arayat in the background. The caption to that photo is also incorrectly captioned as taken at Rabaul.

Sam

G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question

Posted By: Terry Simo <mailto:terrysimo@knology.net?subject=G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question>
Date: Thursday, 5 July 2001, at 7:50 a.m.

Gents,

Can someone provide me information on the Tailgun firing arcs for the G4M1 Model 11 with the full tailcone and then the firing arcs with the introduction of the Model 12 which included the cut-down tailcone. I'm curious as to how much of an improvement was added to the field of fire by the tailcone changes.

Thanks

Terry Simo

Re: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question

Posted By: Jim Long <mailto:james.i.long@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question>
Date: Saturday, 7 July 2001, at 9:43 p.m.

In Response To: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question (Terry Simo)

Hello Terry Simo,

It seems to me that what you would want are some figures on the field of fire for the G4M1 model 11 with (1) the original frame and glazing, (2) with the truncated frame and glazing, and (3) the notched frame and glazing that is usually thought to have been first used on the G4M2. It is a funny about the G4M1: all tail gun positions, except the one associated with the G4M3, were first tried on the Betty Model 11. So you have three possibly different fields of fire for the early Bettys. I'd say your best bet would be the data sheets put out by the Technical Air Intelligence Center during the war.

I'll tell you how to get them.

But first let me comment on something you said. I believe you referred to the "Model 12" at one point in your request, and I assume that you were referring to the G4M1 with the truncated tail gun position. I beg to point out that no G4M1 was known as the Model 12. The problem comes from a mistaken belief of long-standing that the G4M1 with Kasei 15 engines was designated the Model 12, when in reality that model was never given a new designation. G4M1s with Kasei 11 or Kasei 15 engines were known as Model 11s, except in certain documents where a distinction between the two had to be made, such as in training plans where the two engines had different maintenance requirements, in which case the G4M1 with Kasei 15 engines was known as the Model 13. The designation "Model 12" was used but as a temporary identification for the first model of the G4M2, which was later given the permanent designation of Model 22. The temporary and permanent designations of Japanese aircraft have caused no end of trouble over the years.

To be continued -

Jim Long

Model 12 Case in Point

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Model 12 Case in Point>
Date: Sunday, 8 July 2001, at 9:29 a.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question (Jim Long)

Hi Jim

Regarding the Model 12 type 1 land attack bomber. The designation first appears on the plan for delivery of new production aircraft in November 1943 with five such aircraft being consigned to the Combined Fleet(no specific Air Group designated). In December 1943 the plan was for 7 to be delivered, 5 going to 761 Air. 761 Ku was one of the first units to be equipped with the G4M2. In the records of that organization and the 1st Air Fleet generally the type is usually referred to as the "Dragon M2". Much room for potential confusion.

Rick

Re: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question

Posted By: Jim Long <mailto:james.i.long@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question>
Date: Saturday, 7 July 2001, at 10:02 p.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question (Jim Long)

Continuing -

Now, to recap, I'd say that your best source of information on the fields of fire for the three tail gun positions on the Betty Model 11 would be the performance and characteristics data sheets published by the Technical Air Intelligence Center. These sheets were used to brief airmen on how best to attack an enemy plane without getting yourself shot down and every effort was made to have them show accurate data. Some of the information came from captured documentation. Other material came from data collected in the field by technical air intelligence officers and men who would examine crashed or captured planes. You may know something about these data sheets from the old book by James P. Gallagher entitled "Meatballs and Dead birds." Gallagher published two or three sets of these data sheets as illustrations. And more recently, a Planes of Fame Publication called "Japanese Aircraft Performance & Characteristics" by Edward T. Maloney has been put on the market and is currently available. There is just one trouble with Maloney's book in fulfilling your needs. It only has a fields-of-fire data sheet for the G4M2, which would serve to show you the data for the notched frame and glazing, but would give no help in the cases of the other two configurations.

But I have all of the data sheets on microfilm and can send you copies of them, assuming that I can get adequate prints from the microfilm (always a function of the quality of the microfilm and of the printer one happens to be using). Send me your s-mail address by off-the-board e-mail, and we can coordinate further that way.

To be continued -

Jim Long

Re: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question

Posted By: Jim Long <mailto:james.i.long@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question>
Date: Saturday, 7 July 2001, at 10:20 p.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M1 Type 1 Tail Gun Question (Jim Long)

Continuing -

I wanted to mention the Osprey Combat Aircraft book by Osamu Tagaya again. This is the one titiled "Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko 'Betty' Units of World War 2." I highly recommend it to everyone. I think it is the first book in English that has all of the Betty models properly identified. Mr. Tagaya mentions the erroneous reference to the G4M1 Model 12 on page 12 and the correct temporary designation of the G4M2 as Model 12 on page 13. You see quite a bit of serial number information in Osamu's book. Part of that resulted from the small contribution I made to his enterprise. But I don't think he got the bit about the Model 13 in the book. I think I found that informationn too late. I reported the finding to him, but he wasn't able to mention it because his book was already at the printer's office.

I mention these things to introduce myself and provide some credentials. I think this is the first posting I've made on this board. My specialties are Japanese aircraft serial numbers, production quantities, dates of production, and characteistics of various types and models. I've done some writing on these subjects and have worked as a researcher on some writing projects of others, such as the late Jeff Ethell, the late Richard Bueschel, Robet C. Mikesh, Peter Scott, Shigeru Nohara, the already mentioned Ed Maloney and Osamu Tagaya, and others. And I'm the co-author of "DOMINATOR: The Story of the Consolidated B-32."

End -

Jim Long

Blue Bettys?

Posted By: Rob <mailto:rware@netc.net.au?subject=Blue Bettys?>
Date: Sunday, 30 September 2001, at 6:09 a.m.

Excuse this ignorant question, but did the IJNAF paint any Bettys with an upper surface Blue hue, or maybe Blue/Black?

thanks

Rob

Re: Blue Bettys?

Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Blue Bettys?>
Date: Monday, 1 October 2001, at 3:13 a.m.

In Response To: Blue Bettys? (Rob)

Hi Rob

The answer is short and definitive: no ...

The following finishes were used:

Betty 11:

1 - All all aircraft produced issued from the factory to IJNAF in NMF from the beginning of the production to about spring 1942. These birds were camouflaged by the IJNAF at depot or unit level in the so-called Kumogata scheme on the uppersurfaces which consisted in wide British camouflage like patches of Dk. Green (most probably FS 34084 like) and Brown (exact reference in FS unknown but seemingly near to 30099)the undersurfaces remaining bare metal. As no primer was used, the paints were very prone to peeling.

2 - From around spring 1942 a factory applied solid green uppersurace camouflage appeared (planes generally reaching the units during the following summer). This consisted of IJNAF Dk. Green Mitsubishi variant in 34052 range. This paint was originally applied on a coat of primer, consequently, the paint was no more prone to extensive peeling. The undersurfaces were still in NMF.

It is entirely possible that the primer application had been deleted from factory painting process on late 1943 produced Betty 11's. In such case, the scheme remained unaltered but was again prone to peeling despite being a factory scheme.

Betty 22 and 24

1 - Originally the scheme used was the classical day scheme of green 34052 upper and bare metal undersurfaces. This scheme was factory applied but primer was no more in use and the paint was ever prone to extensive peeling.

2 - A night scheme, extending the uppersurface color in 34052 range to the undersurface was then applied for a while at factory level. the same application procedure was used and the paint was prone to peeling too.

3 - The factory scheme then reverted to the day scheme (see 1) as standard. Some units still entirely devoted to night missions began to paint the undersurfaces themselves. Sometimes the undersuface coat seem to be darker on B&W pics than the uppersurface coat. Some authors think black paint might have been used. But most probably the paint used was dark green whether a darker paint than the factory one or the effect of a very fresh application of the same paint still unbleached from the sun.

Betty 34:

All were delivered in the day scheme of Dk Green 34052 upper and remained bare metal under.

In NO CASE the use of blue paint was put in evidence

Hope it helps

François

Yamamoto's G4M Betty

Posted By: Matthew Greer <mailto:Seigfreid_MJG@msn.com?subject=Yamamoto's G4M Betty>
Date: Wednesday, 31 July 2002, at 7:48 p.m.

Hello:

I have a friend who is planning on doing a model of Yamamoto's Betty that he was shot down in prior to his fatful encounter with the P-38's. He and I are wondering if there are any pictures or information abt this aircraft. Particulary the markings and was it specially modifiyed to carry dignataries like Yamamoto, or was it a plain jane Betty?

Thanks:
Matthew Greer

Betty interior colour

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Clueless..: HTH! *PIC*>
Date: Saturday, 3 August 2002, at 8:32 a.m.

In Response To: I can't belive that everyone is clueless.. *No Text* (Matthew Greer)

The YAMAMOTO Mitsubishi G4M Betty transport, s/n 2656, coded white [323] from No.705 Kaigun Kokutai, shot down on 18 April 1943, was standard dark green on top surfaces and NMF below.

HTH

Jim Lansdale

Re: Betty interior colour

Posted By: Alex Crawford <mailto:acrawford@blueyonder.co.uk?subject=Betty interior colour>
Date: Thursday, 8 August 2002, at 2:09 p.m.

In Response To: Re: I can't belive that everyone is clueless..*PIC* (Greg Springer)

Hi Greg,

Could you tell me the interior colour for the Betty please. I am building a 1/144 model with some interior detail and I'm not too sure on the colour. I did plan to finish it in the overall white with dark green crosses scheme as used during the surrender negotiations.

Alex

Re: Betty interior colour

Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: Betty interior colour>
Date: Saturday, 10 August 2002, at 8:22 a.m.

In Response To: Betty interior colour (Alex Crawford)

Hello Alex,

I have seen two colors for G4M interiors. The relic from Yamamoto's aircraft at the Nimitz Museum shows a color similar to RAF interior grey-green. In scans posted of the G4M in southern California the paint appears to be in the range *4095 Field Green to *4102 Medium Green. I have matched a Zero relic from Pearl Harbor (Kaneohe)to 4095. These colors are made by Testors in their Model Master enamel line. Gunze make 4102 as H330, Humbrol as HU08 and Xtracolor as X118. The choice is yours. Either could be correct for an undocumented subject. Don't forget that one quirk of Mitsubishi coating policy was to paint the gear wells in the interior color. I hope you find this helpful.

Cheers!

Greg

Re: Betty interior colour

Posted By: Supertom <mailto:thomas.choy@wmich.edu?subject=Re: Betty interior colour>
Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2002, at 9:03 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty interior colour (Greg Springer)

Hi Greg,

Since you mentioned a range between Field Green and RAF Interior Green, I was wondering - so does that mean that I can get away with using Tamiya's IJN Cockpit Green (XF-71)?

Oh, and I noticed that some models of the Betty had their cockpits in RLM 02. Why's that?

Thanks,
tom

Re: Betty interior colour

Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: Betty interior colour>
Date: Saturday, 17 August 2002, at 7:28 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Betty interior colour (Supertom)

Hi Tom,

Sorry to be so late in answering. I have been traveling on business. The range I wrote about is for what is sometimes called bamboo green, the darker of the two colors I have seen. The Tamiya kit recommends RLM 02. I think that is was due to a lack on information on their part or a lack of the correct color in their product line. The new Tamiya color XF-71 is correct for Nakajima-built Zeros and Kates but the color I have examined on a G4M artifact is more gray in tone. What paint brands can you purchase where you live? I'll try to find a match.

Cheers!

Greg

G4M cockpit curtains

Posted By: Jim Obermeyer <mailto:slickobe@aol.com?subject=G4M cockpit curtains>
Date: Sunday, 11 August 2002, at 9:09 a.m.

I see these curtains in my references but does anyone know what they made of and what color they were? I'm working on a G4M1,the Yamamoto mission.

TIA
Jim O.

Re: G4M cockpit curtains

Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: G4M cockpit curtains>
Date: Sunday, 11 August 2002, at 11:02 a.m.

In Response To: G4M cockpit curtains (Jim Obermeyer)

Hi Jim,

I used the old True Details set for mine and finished them in a pale yellow 'unbleached linen'. After I had them installed I saw some photos that led me to believe that they were probably a brown drab color like the flight suits.

IHTH.

Cheers! Greg

Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai

Posted By: Andrew Obluski <mailto:aoba41@yahoo.com?subject=Re: G4M1 'Betty' from the Kanoya Kokutai>
Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2002, at 8:15 a.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai (Kris Carelli)

Kris

During the Battle of Kuantan when Force Z was destroyed Lt HIGASHIMORI Takashi [Eta Jima 65 Class] led 2 Chutai of torpedo-equipped G4Ms. But we don't know whether he really flew this particular aircraft. Only Osamu TAGAYA could verify it as he wrote excellent book on the subject!

Best regards

Andrew

Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai

Posted By: Karoly Kele <mailto:kele@okk.szamalk.hu?subject=Re: G4M1 'Betty' from the Kanoya Kokutai>
Date: Tuesday, 16 July 2002, at 2:16 p.m.

In Response To: (Kris Carelli)

Hi Kris,

According to Osamu Tagaya's "Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko 'Betty' Units of World War 2" book this plane belongs to 2nd Chutai of the Kanoya Kokutai . Individual aircraft numbers were allocated from 316 to 330 for 2nd Chutai. Kanoya Kokutai used "K" letter from Novemer 1940 to November 1942.
Pilot is not mentioned.

HTH.

Charles

Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai

Posted By: Kris Carelli <mailto:kris_carelli@yahoo.com?subject=Re: G4M1 'Betty' from the Kanoya Kokutai>
Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2002, at 5:14 a.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai (Karoly Kele)

Charles,

Thank you very much for this info .... It has helped me.

Any idea who may have been the Commander / Squadron Leader of the 2nd Chutai for the Kanoya Kokutai?

Sincerely,

Kris

Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai

Posted By: Karoly Kele <mailto:kele@okk.szamalk.hu?subject=Re: G4M1 'Betty' from the Kanoya Kokutai>
Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2002, at 12:00 p.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai (Kris Carelli)

Kris,

According Osamu Tagaya’s book on G4M units in the destruction of the Force Z (Repulse and Prince of Wales) the Kanoya Kokutai participated with 26 planes. Nine aircraft of the 1st Chutai was led by Lt Miyoshi Nabeta, eight of the 2nd Chutai by Lt Moritaka Higashi and nine of the 3rd by Lt Haruki Iki. Hikotaicho Lt Cdr Shichiso Miyauchi commanded the entire formation in the observer position in the lead plane piloted by the 1st Chutai leader.
The markings did not always reflect buntai personnel assignments. Eg. Lt Haruki Iki normally flew K-301, which was a 1st Chutai aircraft. Attacking the Repulse he swapped planes and flew with K-310 the spare machine of the 1st Chutai.
K-324 is not mentioned.

Regards,
Charles

Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai

Posted By: Andrew Obluski <mailto:aoba41@yahoo.com?subject=Re: G4M1 'Betty' from the Kanoya Kokutai>
Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2002, at 8:15 a.m.

In Response To: Re: G4M1 "Betty" from the Kanoya Kokutai (Kris Carelli)

Kris

Best regards

Andrew