D.B. Andrus Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 As an aside. did the G-6MW/ G-14 have an MW 50 gauge on the port cockpit sidewall similar to the G-10? Thanks, Damian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanroy Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 32 minutes ago, D.B. Andrus said: As an aside. did the G-6MW/ G-14 have an MW 50 gauge on the port cockpit sidewall similar to the G-10? Thanks, Damian Yes, all machines equipped with MW 50 would all have had the pressure gauge on the left side of the cockpit just below the sill. D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B. Andrus Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 Thanks for the quick response, pvanroy. Cheers, Damian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanroy Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 14 hours ago, Vincent said: You're thinking about the linkages seen in this manual : https://stephentaylorhistorian.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/bf-109g-6-u4.pdf They are the first type, using forged aluminium parts and round rod linkage. It was used on all the G6/U4, G14/U4 and many G10/U4. Then the stamped steel model was introduced to save on labor. 13 hours ago, Vincent said: You know what ? Thanks to this discussion I went to check these rudder pedals linkage in more detail and found out something that escaped me earlier : the early style of linkage is only compatible with the G6 style MK108 housing while the later stamped linkage is only compatible with the K4 style of MK108 housing. So it makes sense now. For some reason, during the G10 and K4 development, the team decided to redesign the MK108 housing AND the linkage. Might be for labor saving or time saving but I suspect it was more about structural function. Of the 2 surviving G10/U4 in the USA, one has the early forged aluminium linkage with G6/U4 MK108 housing (wrknr 610824) while the second one has the K4 assembly (wrknr 610937). Both are coming from the same factory so the change was introduced to all MK108 planes, regardless of the version Thanks a lot ! PS: the kit supplies the early forged type with the first version MK108 housing/ammo bin so it is correct for a G6/U4 or a G14/U4 and the G10/U4 up to around wrknr 610824 but if the kit gets declined as a K4 it won't be correct Vincent Well, it seems we're in agreement then. Thanks for pointing out that early and late styles of linkages were not interchangeable - I had always assumed they were. I think part of the redesign had to do with saving light alloys - a good deal of the changes made to the K-4 centered around replacing light alloys with either steel or wooden parts - e.g. even the wing fillets on many K-4s were laminated wood, as was the seat bucket. In the case of the ammo can, I think the redesign might also have been at least in part related to an effort to make the MK 108 more reliable: this gun was prone to breaking its belts, especially under load, and this problem was never really entirely resolved. If memory serves me well, I seem to recollect that the MK 108 feed in the Me 262 also underwent some redesign for the same reason (but don't quote me on this). It would make sense for WNF to have used up its existing supplies of old housings/linkages before standardizing on the new design, so it's probably not unexpected to find examples of both the old setup and the revised K-4 arrangement among the G-10/U4, especially in the early production blocks. I do hope ZM or another manufacturer will do a K-4. However, if ZM do one, that will involve some significant retooling, well beyond the MK 108 arrangements! D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark williams Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 if I was zm id be too scared to do one incase a bolts the wrong size! Daywalker, nmayhew, 109 and 2 others 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 5 hours ago, pvanroy said: I do hope ZM or another manufacturer will do a K-4. However, if ZM do one, that will involve some significant retooling, well beyond the MK 108 arrangements! There is nothing in this kit that is useable on a K-4, maybe the spinner, exhausts, tail wheel, gun sight and the rudder pedals (but not the mechanism). Everything will need to be changed. The K-4 is literally a different aircraft, every single part will need a change of some kind, some changes small, some changes radical. Radu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B. Andrus Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 6 hours ago, Vincent said: Well, that's the downside of wanting to get too detailled. The outside features of the G6/G14 airframes are already a nightmare of little differences so when you add the interior, things go wild. An example : the battery cover behind the headrest is missing the punched side that gives clearance to the 2 cables but the battery itself is missing its bakelite cover that also acts as the retainer strap guide. So the more internals you add... Here's what a G10 battery really looked like : Vincent The photo wouldn't load for me. Is this the "punched" area you mean? Planes of Fame WNF G-10 battery cover. Cheers, Damian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) That kind of detail cannot be created in injection-moulded plastic without slide-moulds due to tooling limitations. Radu Edited June 10, 2022 by Radub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B. Andrus Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 Missing battery cover: LSP_K2, John1 and TAG 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VintageEagle Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 19 hours ago, pvanroy said: Yes, all machines equipped with MW 50 would all have had the pressure gauge on the left side of the cockpit just below the sill. There was also another position, at least in G-6 with MW50 as described in a British intelligence report about a captured aircraft. I would have to check my sources for details, but I remember that the gauge was installed at a different location since I was doing research about the cockpit of a G-14 for my next book. D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzacher Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 Vincent, after reading the caption of this picture I got curious. What publication is this picture from? I grew up nearby Stuttgart-Echterdingen, where Stuttgart airport is today. Maybe there is a chance to get more information on the place of his "landing", or what has happened? Sorry for being off-topic here! nmayhew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John1 Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 5 hours ago, Vincent said: Another view of the battery with the bakelite top and the metal retaining band (loose) - note that the fuselage hatch cutout also had to be modified to make space for the battery. The presence of the extra notch in the cutout is usually a good indication that the plane had the MW50 installed (the ZM kit does not have the correct cutout if you want to display the battery hatch removed but it is correct for a regular G6 without MW50. Of course if you install the hatch, noone will notice the missing extra cutout) : What a very nice looking specimen of a G-14. How accurate do you feel the colors are in this profile? Do you know of any other pictures out there of "Blue 2"? I'm especially intrigued by the painted out swastika. Hmmm... This might be a nice subject to build once the ZM kit comes out. adameliclem and Troy Molitor 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adameliclem Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 John, the swastika isn’t obscured on Thierry Dekker’s original profile. It must have been obscured by someone else, probably to conform to local posting/publishing rules. I’ve seen a quite different interpretation of that aircraft’s scheme but IMHO Dekker’s looks closer to the posted photo. Here’s the other take, artist unknown (to me). Adam Neo, John1, Troy Molitor and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 1 hour ago, adameliclem said: John, the swastika isn’t obscured on Thierry Dekker’s original profile. It must have been obscured by someone else, probably to conform to local posting/publishing rules. I’ve seen a quite different interpretation of that aircraft’s scheme but IMHO Dekker’s looks closer to the posted photo. Here’s the other take, artist unknown (to me). Adam Interesting... it appears that Thierry Dekker is also a believer in the use of RLM 70 Schwartzgruen as a camouflage colour on late-war aircraft. I do too! Radu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Bellis Posted June 11, 2022 Share Posted June 11, 2022 6 hours ago, Radub said: Interesting... it appears that Thierry Dekker is also a believer in the use of RLM 70 Schwartzgruen as a camouflage colour on late-war aircraft. I do too! Radu Yeah, because if it is/was a dark green, then it MUST be 70. Yeah, ok... The reality is that only the guy that opened the can of paint knows for sure, and he probably didn't care enough to actually read the label. D LSP_Matt, thierry laurent, 109 and 3 others 2 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts