pvanroy

If you're looking for the ultimate reference on the Bf 108, this is it: Schneider Bf 108 book It's not cheap, but absolutely worth the money if you're really interested in the fine details of the type. It also covers post-war production and operators. The book has a section on exports, where among others, the aircraft of the U.S. mission in Berlin are discussed. Summarizing, the first aircraft was Bf 108 B-1 W.Nr 836 and it was purchased by the U.S. Navy. The machine was first flown by Fritz Wendel in Augsburg on 08 January 1937, and was transferred on 30 March 1937 from Augsburg to Rangsdorf. It was probably transported to the U.S.A. in 1940, and was examined in detail by Fairchild in Hagerstown, MD. This machine was scrapped some time after the end of the war, and the wreckage was buried under the runway extension in Hagerstown. This aircraft was painted light grey all-over, with black U.S. Navy titles on the fuselage and BuNo 0724 in black on the tail. It had a Schwarz wooden fixed pitch propeller. At least two photographs exist of this machine, which are reproduced in the book. In March 1939, the U.S. mission received a second aircraft, Bf 108 B-1 W.Nr 2004, which was purchased by the U.S. Army. In Army service, it received the official designation of XC-44, and the Serial No 39-718. The aircraft was used as the personal transport of the military attaché. Reportedly, Charles Lindberg flew this aircraft personally during one of his visits to Berlin. The aircraft was impounded by the RLM on 15 November 1941. At the time the machine had accumulated 76 flying hours. It was delivered to the Luftwaffe, and its ultimate fate is unknown. No photographs are known to exist of this aircraft, but according to accounts, it was painted yellow all-over, and had the pre-war U.S. national markings on the vertical tail and under the wings. This was one of the first airframes to be equipped with the new Messerschmitt P7 constant speed propeller, used in conjunction with the Argus As 10 E engine.

Strictly regarding the operational use of the B-3, there isn't really much new in the revised edition. What is of interest are the addition of the three photographs of W.Nr 162052, and the revelation that the heavily retouched image of a supposedly operational B-3 in flight was actually a creation of Gert Heumann, based on the mirrored photograph of a standard B-2. While there is obviously quite a significant overlap between the 1997 and 2019 books, the new edition is significantly reworked, and although I do have the original 1997 book, I don't at all regret buying the new edition.

The VDM website only lists four volumes for sale.

For the Hs 129 B-3, it's going to be difficult to do more than one decal option that is historically supported. Only around 20 production aircraft were built, and just one of those (W.Nr 162052) is documented in three photographs after its capture by the Soviets at Tonndorf on 22 January 1945. However, in the photographs, the aircraft is very heavily covered with snow, making it impossible to see any markings. The only other photographically documented option is W.Nr. 140494, Stkz. DO+XG, which was a test aircraft converted from a B-2. These are the markings shown in the built model, and are pretty much the only option that is not speculative. Another B-2 test machine associated with B-3 development that is recorded photographically is W.Nr 141258. However, this aircraft did not have a real BK 7.5, but carried a wooden mock-up of the gun and its fairing for aerodynamic testing.

Well, if you want to go into details, from the instructions it also seems the fuel cut-off lever, cold start handle, stores emergency jettison handle (or handles for WNF/Diana machines, which had them on both sides of the cockpit) may be missing. However, even if that's the case, these things can all be scratched quite easily. It may not be perfect, but it certainly is the best 109 G cockpit out of the box by far!

All Israeli machines had landing gears with the original negative camber. The neutral camber was tested on S-199 numbers 2, 44 and 65, and was introduced on the Avia production line from aircraft 112 onwards - so after the last Israeli machines were delivered (112 made its first flight on 30 June 1948). As far as I can tell, no S/CS-199 ever used the larger 190 X 660 mm wheels, all aircraft from the start seem to have had the narrower 160 X 660 mm wheels. In fact, it seems that this is probably also the case for the S/CS-99 (post-war produced WNF/Diana-standard G-10/U4, with some changes). I have no date for when the rounded wheel wells were introduced, but I think it is fair to assume this also happened after the delivery of the final Israeli machines - so in my opinion, all Israeli aircraft likely had the typical angular G wells.

Well, you should be able to use the Eduard rack, and the Hasegawa rack without modification for the F-1/-2/-3/-4, and the G-1/-2/-3/-4. In other words, you can use the available ETC 500 IX/b racks from Eduard and Hasegawa without change for any F, and for the early G versions that had MG 17 guns. If you want to do G-5/-6/-8/-14/-10 or K-4 with an ETC 500 IX/b rack, you will have to add the chutes at the front. So, in other words, if the aircraft is armed with MG 131 guns over the engine, you need to modify the rack. Hope this helps!

The rack you arrowed is the ETC 500 IX/b for a single 250 kg bomb. The other rack is in the lower left corner - this is the cover for 4 individually mounted ETC 50 VII d racks, each of which could carry a 50 kg bomb. The reason why the ETC 500 IX/b on the sprue looks different to the ones in the photographs was already explained by Radu and me - it has to do with the ejection ports for the MG 131 casings. In aircraft with MG 17 guns mounted over the engine (i.e. all Bf 109s up to and including the G-4), the spent casings were collected on board, and there were no ejection chutes. These aircraft used the rack you arrowed (it can be seen in the second photograph Radu posted, which shows an E-1/B or E-8). With the introduction of the MG 131 over the engine in the G-5/G-6, the spent casings were no longer kept on board, but ejected through two chutes on the bottom of the aircraft. When the rack you arrowed was mounted, the cover of the ETC 500 IX/b rack partially overlapped the ejection chutes. To solve this problem, a chute or channel or whatever you want to call it was added to either side of the cover at the front, which connected to the ejection chutes on the belly of the aircraft and guided the spent casings out to either side of the rack. This is what you see in the first and the last picture Radu posted, and it is the reason why the rack covers used on the G-5/G-6 onwards were wider at the front. It has to be stressed that the ETC 500 IX/b rack itself remained the same for all aircraft from E-K - it was only the cover that was modified to accommodate the ejected spent casings from the G-5/G-6 onwards.

Indeed, as I noted, later versions had some modification to the cover to accommodate the ejected casings - but it would not seem too difficult to modify the the ETC 500 IX/b cover provided in the Eduard set to make it suitable for the G-5/G-6 onwards. In any case, the Eduard rack can be used without modification for any variant up to and including the G-4.

The Bf 109 E-K all used the same bomb racks - the ETC 500 IX/b which could take a 250 kg bomb; 4 ETC 50 VII d racks which each could take a 50 kg bomb; and, up to the G-14, a special dispenser for 24 SD 2 butterfly bomblets. However, use of the SD 2 rack was rare after the E, as there were problems with release of the bomblets; the SD 2 rack was subsequently replaced by cluster bombs containing the bomblets as submunitions, and it was outright discontinued on the G-10 and K. The only difference between the E and later versions is that in some cases, the front of the aerodynamic cover for the ETC 500 IX/b rack was slightly modified to prevent spent casings from the machine guns over the engine from colliding with the cover. Eduard has a bomb set for the 109 E which with little or no modification can also be used for later versions: Eduard bomb set AML also includes the 4 x ETC 50 VII d carrier in their Israeli S-199 conversion, but if you mail them they might be willing to sell it separately: S-199 conversion with ETC 50 VII d That is an ETC rack for a 300 l drop tank, not a bomb rack.

No. But there is a full-scale model on display at Planes of Fame: He 100 Planes of Fame FSM

I see. Apologies for the misunderstanding!

Indeed, it's basically the same.

No snake for the V1 - the snake was painted on the V4 (armed fighter prototype) for propaganda photos. The V1 was first left unpainted, with puttied seams and rivets, and covered in highly polished clear varnish. After the record attempt, the aircraft was painted in highly polished RAL 5008 Graublau (the Messerschmitt company color, also used on e.g. civilian Bf 108) - NOT RLM 24 as you often see quoted.

The Kamov Ka-50 and Ka-52 have a Zvezda K-37 crew ejection system, but it is not really an ejection seat. The crew members are attached via a lanyard to an extraction rocket which pulls them out of the cockpit. The seats themselves are not ejected, they are fixed in the cockpit and are designed to be shock absorbing in case of a crash landing. The ejection sequence is as follows: 1. Rotor blades are blown off with explosive charges; 2. Canopy is blown off; 3. Seat belts are cut; 4. extraction rocket fires and pulls crew member free of the aircraft. The system itself works very reliably, and is certified for speeds between 0 - 350 km/h and 0 - 5000 m altitude. The only downside is that the ejection sequence takes 2 - 3 seconds, which is an eternity when flying NOE.

Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. It all depends on the thermal conductivity of the coating. Most paints are indeed insulators, but if the coating has a conductivity similar to or higher than the metal, there is obviously no insulating effect. Anodization and other specialized coatings do indeed have greater conductivity than most metals, so in that case there is no issue with heat transfer at all. If the coating also has a high emissivity in the IR spectrum, such a coating would indeed improve the rate of radiative heat flow, providing a radiative cooling advantage. This advantage increases exponentially with temperature, so there would certainly be a benefit for a radiator. However, aircraft radiators generate their cooling effect predominantly through convection; the contribution of cooling through radiation is normally quite small. Still, I could see it being useful for keeping an engine from overheating while idling on the ground or taxiing, when convection is limited. Also, in high-power applications where even the most minimal advantage may make the difference between winning or losing (like in combat aircraft and race machines), even a small gain in radiative cooling efficiency might be worth the trouble. It would potentially also make more sense in a car, where the radiator is less exposed, and which may spend considerable time idling or moving at slow speed in city traffic - which are all factors significantly limiting convective airflow through the radiator (hence the addition of a fan).

Actually, there is a resin model by AMC of the Chelomey 16X in 1/32 scale, although that kit provides the later camera nose. It's quite a nice kit, but the nose is solid resin, so you need to drill out the camera window and make a suitable transparent cover. Unfortunately, photographs of the later camera nose are very thin on the ground...

The Luftwaffe stopped development of the EF 126 in March 1945, as they considered it to be totally impractical. The Soviets after the war also reached the same conclusion, but nevertheless ordered continuation of the project purely for research purposes, to explore the feasibility of pulsejet propulsion for manned aircraft. In total, five aircraft were built in Germany under Soviet supervision during 1946-47. The V1 and V3 were finished as gliders, the V2 was a static test airframe, and the V4 and V5 were powered. Flight tests with the gliders started in Germany, with the V1 being destroyed when returning from its second test flight due to pilot error (the test pilot was killed). The machines, together with the entire Junkers staff, were transported to the Soviet Union in 1947, where testing continued. Apparently, the machine flew really well, and it seems Junkers had managed to solve the problem of the acoustic effects of the pulsejet on the pilot and airframe. However, reliability of the pulsejets themselves was extremely poor. Because of this, and the fact that rapid advances in turbojet development had rendered the entire project irrelevant, flight testing was stopped at the end of August 1947, and the entire project was officially canceled in June the next year.

Well, I suppose I could write it up if anyone is interested. However, I think most people buy this kit with the intention of doing a relaxing what-if build, free from the constraints of total accuracy, so I think there wouldn't be too much interest. The technical execution of the model is very good - the moldings are very high quality, the fit is excellent and the instructions are great. So, if you're not bothered by the inaccuracies, it's going to be a very easy and relaxing build. It's also going to be quite a while before I finish - if you do want an accurate model, there is a huge amount to fix and correct, involving both scratch-building and 3D work. I've already done quite a bit, but I still don't think I'm halfway, and I haven't had time to get back to it over the past month due to more pressing commitments, so it's not going to be finished anytime soon!

You're of course absolutely right! I don't know why, but I keep mixing this up - for some reason I keep thinking the D/F loop is part of the FuG 25 system, while of course indeed it's part of the FuG 16 ZY as you pointed out. Thanks for correcting me, and apologies for the misinformation!

Not wanting to be pedantic, but strictly speaking, this is not a regular Bf 109 E. It is a Bf 109 T-2 of NJG 101 (formerly Nachtjagdfliegerschule 1), a night fighter training unit. The image was taken in the Spring of 1943 at Ingolstadt.

It is, admittedly, a very obscure subject. There are two photographs of the fifth prototype, one perfect side view, the other a three-quarter front view. You can find both on the internet, but unfortunately, the resolution is generally poor, and it seems the negatives from which the scans were made were also damaged. The best reproduction of these images I have found so far is in Göpfer's (2020) Flieger Revue X article on the work of German aviation engineers in the Soviet union post-war. In addition, there is also a photograph of a large scale wooden wind tunnel model of the final configuration, which is reproduced in Sharp (2020), and photos of a desk-top model in near-final configuration in Sobolew (2000), Gordon & Komissarov (2008) and Göpfer (2020). There are no images of the cockpit, but it is known from documents that the machine used a Heinkel ejector seat. The most complete account of the post-war activities of German aviation engineers in the Soviet Union is given by Sobolew (2000), and it also includes several pages on the EF 126. References useful for the EF 126 as built and tested post-war are: - Butler, A.L. & Gordon, Y. 2008. Soviet Secret Projects. Fighters since 1945. Hinckley: Midland Publishing. 176 pp. [short entry on EF 126, has three-quarter front view of prototype] - Göpfer, R. 2020. Deutsche Luftfahrtspezialisten in der Sowjetunion 1945 - 1954. Wissens-Transfer als Reparationsleistung. Flieger Revue X 81, 66-97. [thorough article, with best reproductions of both side view and three quarter front images of the fifth prototype, and of a desk-top model in final configuration] - Gordon, Y. & Komissarov, S. 2008. German Aircraft in the Soviet Union and Russia. Hinckley: Midland Publishing. 320 pp. [thorough entry on EF 126; has three-quarter front view of prototype and schematic of intermediate configuration, not final aircraft as built] - Sharp, D. 2020. Secret Project of the Luftwaffe. Volume 1. Jet Fighters 1939-1945. Horncastle: Tempest Books. 336 pp. [discusses wartime development of EF 126 and EF 127, and has image of wind tunnel model in final configuration] - Sobolew, D.A. 2000. Deutsche Spuren in der Sowjetischen Luftfahrtgeschichte. Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn: Verlag E.S. Mittler & Sohn GmbH. 311 pp. [thorough treatment of EF 126 development and testing in the Soviet Union post war; includes schematic of intermediate configuration, and image of desk model in final configuration] So, details of the aircraft built are hard to come by, but from the photographs it is definitely possible to get a decent representation of the aircraft with regard to geometry and dimensions. Using digital versions of the two photos from Flieger Revue X, I've been using a number of techniques to enhance resolution and improve lighting, balance and contrast to extract as much information as possible. Since the base images are not too great, there's only so much you can do, but it still is possible to get more information from these photos that way than you'd expect when you first see them. Another thing that helps is that the aircraft was designed for maximal simplicity in design and construction. As an example, the shape of the lower fairing actually just is a higher harmonic of the outline of the fuselage. Filling in things like the cockpit, skid well, interior of airbrake, etc. require educated guess work, but there still are a number of reasonable assumptions that can be made to reconstruct these areas in a plausible way. Considering the cockpit, the best template is probably the He 162, considering that both aircraft were intended to be very simple and cheap to build, maintain and replace, and the fact that Junkers was one of the major producers for the He 162. Given that the machines were constructed for the Soviets, and were tested in the Soviet Union, it stands to reason they would have used Soviet R/T equipment (likely RSI-3/4). Inspiration for the interior of the skid, airbrake, skid well, etc. can be gotten from aircraft with similar arrangements from the period (for the airbrake internal support, I'm loosely inspired by the MiG-15 airbrakes, whereas for the skid, I've been looking at images of the Bisnovat 5). So, in summary: because information on the machines that were built is so sketchy, it won't be possible to build a totally accurate model. However, there is enough to get a pretty decent representation of the overall aircraft, and the areas that need to be reconstructed can be filled in with reasoned guess work. However, the kit will require significant modifications to get there. Whether you care about this or not, is of course totally up to the builder, and his/her passion for the aircraft!

From 1941 onwards, they were increasingly relegated to fighter-bomber roles first, and to quieter secondary fronts like e.g. northern Norway. I'd need to check, but if I'm correct JG 5 operated some 109 Es in the fighter bomber role until 1943. During 1941 and 1942, some machines were also passed on to Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia. From 1942 onwards, the aircraft were being withdrawn from front line service, and most of these indeed went to fighter training schools. The Luftdienst also took some 109 Es on charge - this organization was mainly concerned with towing aerial targets for the benefit of the Flak, and also fulfilled courier duties. In these roles, the 109 E continued until the end of the war. In connection with the 109 E, it is also of interest that the 109 T, which basically is a specialized subtype of the E, remained operational as a fighter aircraft until mid-1944, after which it was also withdrawn to fighter schools, where the surviving machines served until the end of the war. And, of course, aircraft that were too worn out or damaged to repair were recycled. Unfortunately, it's indeed difficult to find photographs of 109 Es in these second line duties. However, the second volume of the Kagero monograph on the E has quite a good selection of 109 Es from fighter schools - and even a rare image of one of the machines operated by the Luftdienst.

Be aware that the designers of the model took the actual aircraft as a rough guide only and made several 'improvements'... So, if you want to model the machine as it was actually built after the war, it requires a LOT of work (I'm working on an entirely new ventral fairing and skid, among other things). And the twin engined version is pure fantasy. (There is the twin engined Junkers-Argus SFP that was possibly a further development of of the EF 126, but that was a much bigger machine with a classic retractable undercarriage, and the authenticity of the only known schematic of this design is unconfirmed; at any rate, you can't build it from this kit).

Not an expert by any means. Just an obsessed maniac with a fairly decent library.