pvanroy

... Scratch my comment on it being a grounding wire - D.B. Andrus is right, it is the tensioning wire. I was thinking of aircraft with a fixed antenna mast - in those cases, the antenna wire just hooks onto the mast. However, in the case where the antenna mast is mounted on the Erla-Haube, the antenna indeed runs down the mast - this arrangement is needed because otherwise it would be impossible to open the canopy... Silly me.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the antenna lead just hooks to the antenna mast, with springs near the attachment maintaining tension. IIRC, the wire running from the antenna base plate to canopy opening handle is a grounding wire. This wire is indeed not connected to the radio equipment - the connection is through the wire leading into the rear fuselage on frame 7.

I assume you're referring to the UV-lights in the cockpit. These were attached to the framing of the windscreen, and were used to excite the radium paint on the instrument dials.

Not quite: the first Bf 109 version to use GM-1 was the E-7/Z. WNF built a small batch of 17 E-7/Z aircraft in February-March 1941 (W.Nr. 5920 - 5985), but additional aircraft were upgraded to E-7/Z standard (e.g. Galland's W.Nr. 5819, which started life as a WNF-built E-4/N, but was upgraded to E-7/Z standard in early 1941). The mounting of the GM-1 tanks differed between the E-7/Z and F-4/Z: while in the E-7/Z they were mounted in the fuselage, the F-4/Z had them in the wings (filler points were in the wheel wells). The Germans were very adept at recycling airframes,

Mermet & Ehrengardt (2016) certainly is one of the better and more current general references on the Bf 109, so I would recommend it. If you can get it for $53, I'd go for it, as I believe it's out of print and I've seen some rather silly amounts being asked for it. Mermet's main research focus are the later G and K series (he was indeed the one to first document the different cowling variations associated with the DB 605 AS and D engines), and the book is particularly good for those; coverage of early versions is a bit less good. Personally, I was a bit disappointed to see the section on

The cowl is an Erla-type - which in itself says nothing, as these were also sold to other manufacturers by Erla, and hence found their way onto aircraft produced by other plants (all G-8 airframes were produced by WNF). The G-6/U3 had exactly the same camera equipment and set-up as the G-8, so it would be quite difficult to tell the two apart; in essence, the G-8 was a newly-built G-6/U3, rather than a conversion. All G-8 aircraft were equipped with an Erla Haube; judging from the photgraph, this aircraft likely had the old 3-piece canopy, which would make it a G-6. Hope this helps.

The essential differences between the F-2 and F-4 were the engine, and engine cannon. The F-2 used a DB 601 N engine with an MG 151/15 cannon, whereas the F-4 used a DB 601 E with an MG 151/20. However, over the course of production, a number of further differences accumulated between both subtypes - I've tried to list the most significant here. Engine F-2: Daimler-Benz DB 601 N F-4: Daimler-Benz DB 601 E This difference is externally not visible. Engine Cannon: F-2: Mauser MG 151/15, 15.1 mm calibre F-4: Mauser MG 151/20, 20 mm calibre Thi

I'm afraid you can't build a production-standard MiG-29K from the Trumpeter kit - or at least not without very significant modification. When Trumpeter brought out their MiG-29K kit, the aircraft existed only as a prototype, and that's what you get with the kit. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the entire project was basically put on ice, both because of a lack of funds, but also because the AV-MF had decided to go with the Su-33 as their carrier fighter. The MiG-29K was revived only around 2004, because of Indian interest - they needed carrier fighters for the Admiral Gorshkov / Vikramadit

I'm afraid that's just a tall story. As Radu already pointed out: anyone's grip strength will fail long before enough force is reached to dismember a joint. While with the right technique or through sheer brute force it's fairly easy to dislocate joints and fracture even major bones, dismembering a joint through brute force is very difficult - medieval drawn-and-quarterings would often take hours. Also consider that, if memory serves me right, the world-record for a single handed deadlift is something like 360 kg, the record for a raw double handed lift is something like 460 kg, and with strap

Indeed. All I-16 from the Type 5 onward had paired exhaust pipes in the upper left opening. In earlier models up to the Type 10, all other openings had a single pipe. This was possible because these aircraft had an additional pair of openings in the lower cowling. However, starting from the Type 17, the aircraft was adapted to allow the wheels to be swapped out for skis. Because the retracted skis would cover the two lowermost exhaust openings, these openings were deleted, and the exhausts of cylinders 5 and 6 were re-routed to share the openings with the exhausts of cylinders 4 and 7 respecti

The arrangement of the exhausts on the I-16 indeed depends on the Type - different Types used different engines (M-22, M-25A, M-25V, M-62 and, finally, M-63). For the Type 24 (M-63 engine) specifically, both lower exhaust openings have two pipes coming out, and the upper exhaust opening on the left also takes two. The three other openings just take a single pipe.

... And a larger reproduction of one of the images of S9+GT can be found here: https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109E/ZG1-EF/pages/Messerschmitt-Bf-10E7U1-9.ZG1-S9+GT-Ernst-Klebert-Belgorod-July-1942-ebay-02.html

This type of supercharger intake can be found on most, if not all, of the 63 Bf 109 T-2 built by Fieseler between March and June 1941. The production of these T-2 aircraft was preceded by a batch of 135 E-7 machines produced between October 1940 and March 1941 (the last 109 E aircraft produced). So, it is possible some of those final E-7 machines produced by Fieseler also received this supercharger intake, and it further appears that a small number of other E aircraft was retrofitted with the intake from 1941 onwards. The machine Tolga wants to model may be one of those final Fieseler-built E-

It's not uncommon for the Bf 109 E to have a gap around the rear of the cowling, which is usually most pronounced at the top as shown in the photograph above. The sides are generally tighter, although they can still display a small gap as well. Apparently, 'out of wind' tolerances for the 109 E cowling were pretty wide.

Ransom & Cammann (2003, p. 411) has three photographs and a profile of W.Nr. 191659 after its arrival in the U.K., but in its original Luftwaffe markings before restoration. I've taken a quick snap of the page which you can download here: https://yadi.sk/i/pMYl9v-pfxQVwQ Let me know if you need a better image, I can have the page scanned. Reference: Ransom, S. & Cammann, H.-H. 2003. Me 163 Rocket Interceptor. Volume Two. Hersham, U. K.: Classic Publications (Ian Allan Publishing). 220 pp.