Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pvanroy

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. You may be interested in Phil Listemann's booklet on the Spitfire F.24 (Allied wings 18): https://www.raf-in-combat.com/downloads/aw18-the-supermarine-spitfire-f-24/ This booklet has a photo of VN 496 on p. 21, and a profile of this machine at the end. Also note that late production F.24s used the same gear covers as the Seafire FR.47.
  4. As far as I'm aware, all documentary evidence (color photos and crash reports) suggests that Erla G-10s from the 490XXX (September 1944 - November 1944); 491XXX (December 1944 - January 1945), 150XXX (December 1944 - January 1945) and part of the 151XXX (December 1944 - March 1945) block were camouflaged in the old scheme of RLM 74/75/76. So, in fact, it seems that the majority of Erla G-10 was finished in the classical RLM 74/75/76 scheme. At some point in the 151XXX block (probably February-March 1945), Erla switched to a solid coat of RLM 81 on the top surfaces and sides. The top color usually also wrapped around the rear fuselage; undersides of the wings and cowl were left unpainted. In a few cases, a pattern of RLM 81/82 may have been used on some machines. As regards the wing bulges: early machines produced by Erla (blocks 490XXX and 491XXX) had small wing bulges and regular 660 X 160 wheels; later Erla G-10s had the large rectangular bulges and oversized 660 X 190 wheels. So, the rectangular bulges by themselves aren't wrong for an Erla G-10 - but are only appropriate for the later machines. Hartmann's aircraft was from an earlier production block, and had the small bumps and wheels, so that specific airframe can't be built straight out of the box from the Revell kit - you either need to get the upper wing inserts with small bulges from the Revell G-6, or get the Barracuda Cast inserts.
  5. Do you need to know what the different bits that are arrowed in the image are? In that case: 1. UV light. These could be aimed at the instrument panel, to excite the radium paint on the instrument dials, for night / low light flying. 2. Emergency undercarriage lowering lever. 3. Flare port. A flare pistol would be attached here. 4. Another UV light, see 1. 5. Manual control for the radiator flaps. 6. Emergency jettison of stores. 7. Radiator cut-off valve control. In the majority of Bf 109s produced, the radiators could not be shut off from each other. This meant that, if one of the radiators got punctured, the aircraft would lose its coolant very quickly. Messerschmitt therefore developed radiator cut-off valves that allowed a damaged radiator to be shut off. However, for some unclear reason, these cut-off valves did not find widespread use, and they are a relatively rare fit. 8. Windscreen rinsing tap. Opening the tap would spray fuel over the windscreen to remove oil and other dirt. Do note that the cockpit in the image is for a G-6. While the G-10 cockpit is largely similar, there are a number of differences.
  6. The drawing of the camera is for a Bf 109 F-4/R4. In the 109 F, the fuel tank pressure equalisation valve / fuel overflow drain is located on the underside left of frame 1 - which places it in front of the camera. Therefore, to avoid fuel residue potentially soiling the camera lens, some aircraft had the drain extended with a tube past the camera window - as shown in the drawing. On later G-series airframes, the drain was moved backward, obviating the need for this kind of extension tube. Do note that this drawing is not correct for a Bf 109 E-5 or E-6, but refers to an Rb 50/30 equipped F-4/R4. The installation might also be applicable to the E-7/U3 and E-9, which also used an Rb 50/30 installation; however, no definite images of either version are known. In fact, it's uncertain whether the E-7/U3 was built at all, and of the E-9 only very few were built - possibly only one E-9 was constructed.
  7. Ha! You just posted the images while I was writing my reply! Yes, indeed, that's the E-5 mentioned by Vogt (2012). If you look at the links I sent, there's another image of an unmarked E-5.
  8. You can find two color images of the damaged Bf 109 E-5 W.Nr. 3891, Yellow 6 from 9./JG 26 referred to by Vogt (2012) here: https://me109.info/web.php?lang=en&auth=e&name=version_display&auswahl_uv=49&auswahl_hv=1&versionscategory=6 You can clearly see the rather clumsy looking box-like cover for the camera in the first image. Another image of an unmarked Bf 109 E-5 still carrying its Stammkennzeichen can be found on p. 92 of Janowicz (2008). In the book, the aircraft is not identified as an E-5, but again the box cover for the camera is very obvious. I don't have access to a scanner at the moment, but I took a quick photograph of the image - you can download it here: https://yadi.sk/i/IDbTfI0E7gNQpw I did the same for the p. 301 from Vogt (2012), pertaining to the E-5, you can download it here: https://yadi.sk/i/qaxdN8-a5bxikg Please accept my apologies for the poor quality of the pictures. If you need better images, I'll see if I can scan them properly later. When it comes to the drawing of the camera cover depicted in the old Squadron Signal volume (Beaman & Campbell 1980), as posted by Mike Maben: this is incorrect for the E-5. This type of cover was only used from the Bf 109 F-4/R4 onwards in conjunction with the installation of a Rb 75/30 or Rb 50/30 camera. Actually, if you look carefully at the image (which is redrawn from a photograph from the technical manual), you can see that it's not a 109 E, but a later version. Finally, Ritger (2005) doesn't treat the 109E reconnaissance variants. References (books with relevant information for the E-5 in bold) Beaman, J.R. Jr & Campbell, J.L. 1980. Messerschmitt Bf 109 in action. Part 1. Aircraft No. 44. Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications. 50 pp. Janowicz, K. 2008. Messerschmitt Bf 109 E. Monographs 38. Lublin: Kagero. 116 pp. Ritger, L. 2005. The Messerschmitt Bf 109. A comprehensive guide for the modeller. Part 1: Prototype to 'E' Variants. Bedford: SAM Publications. 176 pp. Vogt, H.H. 2012. Messerschmitt Bf 109. Einsatzmaschinen. Das Nachslagwerk. Zweibrücken: VDM Heinz Nickel. 384 pp.
  9. Hartmann's aircraft was an early Erla-produced G-10. If I'm not mistaken, research has shown that early Erla machines were camouflaged in the old 74/75/76 scheme. At some point in the 151XXX W.Nr. block, Erla switched over to a solid application of 81, or possibly 81/82 in some machines. Have a look at the links, they may be of use: https://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2011/09/erich-hartmanns-last-bf-109-g-10.html http://theprofilepaintshop.blogspot.com/2011/09/erich-hartmanns-bf109g-10.html http://theprofilepaintshop.blogspot.com/2014/03/barracuda-studios-bf109g-10-erla-decals.html
  10. Vogt (2012, p. 301) provides the following information (my translation from the original German): "The Bf 109 E-5 was converted from the Bf 109 E-1 into a tactical reconnaissance aircraft at the factory, and was likewise equipped with the DB 601 A. The camera installation of the Bf 109 E-5 consisted of a Rb 21/18 camera in the position where the FuG 7a was housed in the E-1 (fuselage sections 3 and 4). The film cassette contained 60 meters of film, which was sufficient for at least 300 images. Size of the images was 18 X 18 cm. Many losses of the Bf 109 E-5 were recorded in the Jagdgeschwadern. Why this aircraft was used in these units is unknown. A nice color image from JG 26 shows an E-5 with combat damage. It concerns Werk-Nummer 3891. The camera had a rectangular sheet metal cover to protect it from oil and dust. The pilot could mechanically open a sliding cover to expose the objective to take images. Except for the camera installation, the E-5 was similar to the E-1. Only 29 aircraft were constructed, from which it can be assumed that this camera installation was unsuccessful. This also explains the use of this aircraft as a fighter by the Jagdgeschwadern. Many Bf 109 E-5 were converted / equipped to Bf 109 E-4 and E-7 standard by maintenance centers. Construction numbers: Arado W.Nr. 3854 - 3919* 29 E-5 04.1940 - 06.1940 *includes also Bf 109 E-1 Fuselage: In fuselage sections 3 and 4, a box was attached to the outside to protect the camera objective. A sliding cover was used to expose the objective. More details are unfortunately unknown. Otherwise unchanged from the fighter aircraft. Undercarriage: Unchanged from fighter E-1 Tail: Unchanged from fighter E-1 Controls: Unchanged from fighter E-1 Wings: Unchanged from fighter E-1 Engine: Unchanged from fighter E-1 Radio equipment: Unchanged from fighter E-1 Weapons: Unchanged from fighter E-1 Camera: Aerial mosaic camera Rb 21/18" The book also provides side and bottom line drawings of the fuselage, and an image of the instrument panel. The instrument panel was identical to the panel of the E-1, except for the addition of the camera control below the panel. The caption for the IP also notes that it is unknown on which side the lever to operate the camera cover was located. Radinger & Schick (1999, p. 92) essentially state the same: 'Tactical reconnaissance aircraft. Similar to the E-1 with DB 601 A. For this mission the radio equipment in the fuselage was replaced with a Rb 21/18 camera. The camera operation was electric. The film cassette contained 60 meters of film, sufficient for approximately 300 photographs (18 X 18 cm).' On p. 104, these authors also note the delivery of 29 Bf 109 E-5 by Arado. References Radinger, W & Schick, W. 1999. Messerschmitt Bf 109 A - E. Development - Testing - Production. Altglen PA: Schiffer Military History. 136 pp. Vogt, H.H. 2012. Messerschmitt Bf 109. Einsatzmaschinen. Das Nachslagwerk. Zweibrücken: VDM Heinz Nickel. 384 pp.
  11. Many thanks to both @williamj and @TAG for this great information! David Wadman is a highly regarded researcher on Luftwaffe subjects in general and reconnaissance aircraft in particular, so that information is pretty authoritative! It would make sense for these kind of differences in finish to have been tied at least in part to manufacturer - in total, seven different production organisations were involved in 109E production (with three different concerns for the E-3 and E-4 subtypes - Mtt, WNF and Erla IIRC). On top of that, as williamj already pointed out, older airframes were indeed commonly recycled by upgrading them to later variants. I know the canopy framing on later G and K series was painted 66 inside and out and was often left like that, so it again makes sense to have a similar situation in the E. Thanks again!
  12. Many thanks for the information! I wasn't aware of that. I totally believe you, examples of Luftwaffe aircraft with a finish that in some aspect does not agree with official directives are pretty common. Do you by any chance know if 109E cockpits painted overall in RLM 66 were linked to a specific production plant, or was it standard on all aircraft regardless of producer?
  13. Interesting... Regarding the Bf 109: where did you get the information of the entire cockpit being in RLM 66 from the E-4 onwards? Not saying it's wrong, just interested. I thought coloring of all cockpit parts visible from the outside in RLM 66 was only introduced in the November 1941 issue of directive L.Dv.521/1.
  14. From 1938 onwards, cockpit should be in RLM 02, except for the instrument panel which should be in RLM 66 (prior to 1938, RLM 02 was also specified for the instrument panel). Introduction of RLM 66 for all cockpit parts visible from the outside (i.e., the entire cockpit in the 109) only occurred in November 1941.
  15. No known wartime photographs, but there are a lot of images of the wreckage that was recovered in Oberpfaffenhofen in late 1989. Pretty much everything that is known about this aircraft, including some new documentary evidence can be found in: Vogt, H.H. 2018. Messerschmitt Bf 109. Versuchs- und Erprobungsträger und der Weg zur Serienproduktion. 496 pp. VDM Heinz Nickel: Zweibrücken, Germany. The Bf 109 V10 is discussed on pages 123-129 of this book. It includes two pages of images of the recovered wreckage, and two pages of four-side line drawings of the machine. I highly recommend this book, and the earlier volume by the same author on the production versions. Link to the book on the publisher's website: https://www.vdmedien24.de/Vogt-Messerschmitt-Bf-109-Versuchs-Erprobungstraeger-Weg-zur-Serienproduktion_1
  16. Constant Peg MiG-23MS, 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron, USAF information and images: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1162493/mikoyan-gurevich-mig-23ms-flogger-e/ https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Portals/7/images/exhibits/MiG-23%20Red%20Eagles%2001.jpg?ver=2018-11-06-082840-517 https://theaviationgeekclub.com/constant-peg-program-mig-23-flogger-fighter-jet-named-air-combat-command-commander/ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26372/usaf-mini-documentary-takes-you-behind-the-scenes-of-its-top-secret-cold-war-mig-squadron https://www.fantasyprintshop.co.uk/shop/wolfpak-72-077-bandits/ Do keep in mind that the Constant Peg machines were MiG-23MS aircraft received from Egypt. The MiG-23MS was a heavily downgraded export version of the early MiG-23M, lacking the IRST system and using the old RP-22SM radar under a smaller radome. So, to do any of these aircraft, you'd have to start by modifying the Trumpeter MiG-23MF. Main changes involve omitting the IRST and sourcing a smaller radome required to turn it into a MiG-23MS. In addition, there are no doubt some smaller differences in aerials, cockpit, etc. associated with the early, downgraded MiG-23MS as compared to the later MiG-23MF. MiG-23-98 prototype / demonstrator information and images: https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/a-i-mikojan-a-m-i-gurjevic/mig-23-98/ https://www.1999.co.jp/image/10168425/60/1 https://www.1999.co.jp/image/10168425/60/2 https://www.1999.co.jp/image/10168425/30/1 For this aircraft, you'd have to start from the Trumpeter MiG-23MLD. Main visible changes would be an upgraded cockpit, and the addition of chaff/flare dispensers on the back. These are the same units as used on the MiG-29, so you could possibly pinch them from a MiG-29 kit and use them with some modification. In addition to that, there are likely other, more minor differences in antennae / dielectric panels associated with new equipment, and modified pylons for use with the new advanced ordnance that was integrated with this airframe. Hope this helps!
  17. This is quite a fascinating topic. I've spent some more time comparing B&W and color photographs of RLM color swatches and aircraft, and the literature on the subject I have at hand. This now leads me to think the machine has the following scheme, which some of you will no doubt find surprising: - Cowling: RLM 02/71/65 (original German colors as delivered) - Main fuselage and wings: RLM 75/77/76 (original German colors as delivered) - Tailplane: British Dark Earth/Dark Green (repainted by the TuAF). The suggestion of the use of RLM 77 for camouflage may seem unusual, but in fact it is not, as the work by Brown (2014) has shown. Here is how I reached my interpretation for the specific Turkish machine Tolga is modelling: First, to summarize what is known for sure: 70 Fw 190 Aa-3 aircraft were built for Turkey by Focke-Wulf (31), Ago (21) and Arado (18) between August 1942 and June 1943 (Rodeike 1998; Smith & Creek 2011). According to the the caption to the photograph of the aircraft published in Daily Sabah (Kline 2019), the Werk Nummer of the machine Tolga wants to build was 4137. If this is correct, this aircraft was produced in February 1943, either by Focke-Wulf (6 aircraft) or Ago (3 aircraft). The 74/75/76 camouflage scheme was officially introduced in the Spring of 1941, after having been trialed for a year previous (Merrick & Kiroff 2004). It officially replaced the 02/71/65 scheme that had been in use up until then. A color photograph from May 1942 of Kurt Ebersberger of 4./JG 26 posing in front of the tailplane of an Fw 190 A-2 or A-3 unequivocally shows that this aircraft has the front of the fin and the small part of the horizontal tailplane visible in the photograph painted in RLM 71 dark green over RLM 65 light blue. The serial number on the fin places this aircraft in a batch of Fw 190 A-2 and A-3 produced by Ago either between August 1941 and December 1942 (Smith & Creek 2012) or October 1941 and September 1942 (Rodeike 1998). This shows that at least part of the Fw 190 A-2 and A-3 produced by Ago continued to use the old 02/71/65 scheme well after it was supposed to have been phased out in favor of 74/75/76. Starting already with the production of the Fw 190 A-0 pre-series, Focke-Wulf did not use the old 02/71/65 scheme (Merrick & Kiroff 2004). The photo of the Turkish Fw 190 Aa-3 that Tolga wants to model unequivocally shows that at least two different camouflage schemes were used on the machines delivered to Turkey: while the tailplane is clearly repainted (likely using British paints; Kurt & Aydıner 2017), the main airframe and replacement cowling both retain their original German paint scheme - but clearly, the cowling is different in colors compared to the rest of the fuselage and wings. The photo was taken using panchromatic film, as shown by the light-colored rendition of the yellow spinner, and the medium tone of the red in the Turkish flag (both colors would have been rendered dark on ortho film). The question now is: what colors were used on this machine? At first sight, a combination of the old 02/71/65 scheme (as used by Ago - see the color photo of Ebersberger's machine), and the new, standard 74/75/76 would seem likely. Comparing to B&W photographs of color swatches, and photographs of actual aircraft, the tone and contrast of colors on the upper cowling would indeed appear to be a good match for 02 and 71 - so the cowling is likely in the old 02/71/65 scheme. It is, however, problematic to conclude that the rest of the fuselage and wings must be 74/75/76: In a B&W photograph, there should be little tonal difference between 74 and 71; however, the darkest color on the fuselage and wings is considerably lighter than the darkest color on the cowling. 75 should be darker than 02; however, in the image the lightest top color on the fuselage and wings is lighter than the lightest top color on the cowling. The contrast between the top colors is considerably greater than the normal contrast between 74 and 75. The contrast between the bottom color and the lightest top color on the main fuselage and wings appears lower than what would normally be expected for 75 and 76. This makes me think that the actual scheme used on the main fuselage and wings is NOT the 'standard' 74/75/76 scheme, but rather 75/77/76. RLM 77 is a somewhat enigmatic color which was intended for camouflage, but the only official mention is for use in code markings. It may have been developed for night fighters and high altitude aircraft, and there is documentary evidence for its use on Do 217 J night fighters and Ju 86 P reconnaissance aircraft. However, over the past decade or so, growing evidence from color and B&W photos, and preserved artefacts has shown that RLM 77 in fact found wider use on fighter aircraft, starting from 1941 until the end of the war; the supposed 'light' variation of RLM 75 that is mentioned in the literature (e.g. Poruba & Mol 2000) actually matches well with RLM 77. This has been debated on Luftwaffe boards for quite some time (e.g. on the defunct Luftwaffe Experten Message Board), and evidence for this has been brought together and summarized in detail by Brown (2014). This is just my hypothesis for the colors of this specific Turkish machine; absent color images, official documents or preserved artefacts pertaining to this specific airframe, interpreting B&W images will almost always leave room for debate and conjecture. Nevertheless, I feel this interpretation ties together the known facts and the information provided by the photograph in the most consistent way. Anyway, just my proverbial 2 cents! References: Brown, D.E. 2014. Camouflage Commentary 1 - Unit Identity of Fw 190 A-8 WNr. 175 140 and Use of Colour RLM 77. 24 pp. Air War Publications: Vanløse, Denmark. https://airwarpublications.com/product/luftwaffe-camouflage-commentary-1-rlm-77/ Kline, S. 2019. Unearthing WW II aircraft buried in Kayseri. Daily Sabah. https://www.dailysabah.com/op-ed/2019/03/06/unearthing-wwii-aircraft-buried-in-kayseri Kurt, E. & Aydıner, U. 2017. Mystery or False News? The Real, "Non-Scandalous" Story of Fw-190. C4 Defense 43, 44-57. http://en.c4defence.com/Magazine/issue-43/55 Merrick, K.A. & Kiroff, J. 2004. Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings 1933-1945. Volume One. 224 pp. Classic Publications (Ian Allen): Hersham, U.K. Poruba, T & Mol, K. 2000. Messerschmitt Bf 109K. Camouflage & marking. 132 pp. JaPo: Hradec Králové. Rodeike, P. 1998. Focke-Wulf Jagdflugzeug. Fw 190 A Fw 190 "Dora" Ta 152 H. 443 pp. Struve Drück: Eutin, Germany. Smith, R.J. & Creek, E.J.2011. Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Volume One 1938-1943. 336 pp. Classic Publications (Crécy): Manchester, U.K. Smith, R.J. & Creek, E.J.2012. Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Volume Two 1943-1944. 330 pp. Classic Publications (Crécy): Manchester, U.K. Photo of Kurt Ebersberger: http://stukasoverstalingrad.blogspot.com/2014/03/luftwaffe-ace.html?m=1 and http://thirdreichcolorpictures.blogspot.com/2012/09/hauptmann-kurt-ebersberger.html
  18. Thanks for pointing out this article! It does confirm some suspicions regarding differences in colors / schemes used by Focke-Wulf and Ago I discussed with Tolga over email.
  19. It's not fantasy. The profile of Bort 36 depicts the prototype/demonstrator of the MiG-23-98, a major upgrade proposed by RSK MiG back in the late nineties involving technology developed for the MiG-29. So, if you want to go that way, you'll have to make quite a few modifications to the kit. In any case, if you do a search for "MiG-23-98" you'll find multiple photos. If you really want to do a machine in two-tone grey, you could also go for one of the Constant Peg machines operated by the US for DACT.
  20. Yes, of course! I've got an interest in German projects myself! The only issue I see with the kit for that purpose is that the German wartime designs had a completely different skid arrangement, with two small, simple skids, one after the other. Modifying the kit to represent this configuration is possible, but would require a fair amount of work. Of course, you can just assume that an operational Luft46 production version would have used the same design of skid as provided in the kit, and obviously no-one can tell you you're wrong. Personally, I'm more interested in doing the aircraft as it was actually built and flown as it lies at the nexus of my two main interests (Luftwaffe and Soviet/Russian VVS). I hope someone would do a DFS 346 for that same reason.
  21. Actually, looking at references and photos of the actual aircraft, it seems the only version that can be built accurately from this kit is the single pulsejet machine as constructed for and tested by the Soviets during 1946-47. And even that would still require some modifications (repositioning the horizontal tailplane, extending the central fin forward, reshaping the outer stabilizing fins, and extending the aerodynamic fairing behind the skid). Photographs of one of the three powered prototypes tested by the Soviets in 1947: http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xplane/ef126/ef126-3.jpg http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/xplane/ef126/ef126-4.jpg
  22. The fuselage has stressed skin effects. Video preview of box contents:
  23. Splendid stuff!!! Totally love it!!! Just sent a pm for the Revell Bf 109G sets. Thanks a lot for bringing us these great aftermarket gears!
  24. As I said higher, strictly speaking it doesn't have to be Luft46: four prototypes were tested by the Soviets in 1946-1947 (3 powered, one as a glider). The only two images known of a completed machine tested in the USSR can be seen here (scroll down): http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/ef126.html IIRC, the images were taken after testing had been discontinued, and the aircraft had been left outside without protection in the winter of 1947-1948, so the machine isn't in the greatest shape.
  25. Was about to post this myself The EF 126 was a design for a cheap, semi-expendable close-support and ground attack aircraft. Work was continued at Dessau under Soviet supervision after the war, and four prototypes (V1, 3, 4 and 5) were completed during 1946. V1 was flown as an unpowered glider, V3-5 were powered and tested at Ramenskoye in the USSR. They only accumulated a limited amount of flying time (in the order of three hours IIRC), being towed into the air by a Ju 88G-6 because of a lack of suitable booster rockets to allow an independent take off. The main outcome of those flights was to prove the unsuitability of pulsejets for powering manned aircraft, and the project was effectively shelved at the end of 1947, being officially terminated in 1948. Apart from its impracticability, the rapid evolution of much more advanced jet powered aircraft had rendered a crude, simple machine like the EF 126 of little interest. The EF 127 was a rocket powered interceptor derivative of the EF 126. It was supposed to be powered by the Walter HWK 109-509C, but no prototypes were ever constructed.
  • Create New...