Vlad Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 As far as I know, the Bf 109G series started off with the same retractable tailwheel as the F series. With the introduction of the Bf 109G-4, the tailwheel was changed to a larger type that no longer fit in the fuselage recess, so was locked down. These tailwheels were then retrofitted to the Bf 109G-2. This is where my problem lies. I like building my aircraft wheels up, but in flight pictures are hard to come by and I'm struggling to work out on specific G-2s whether the tailwheel is retractable or not. Does anyone have more information, maybe tips to recognise the larger tailwheel in ground photos? Or perhaps dates of retrofit for the large wheel or production batches known to have it so I have a basis for making educated guesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawzer Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Can't really help i'm afraid but there's a picture here http://www.luftwaffephotos.com/lme10939.htm showing what are captioned g2's with one wheel down and one up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackG Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 In the MMP book on their G series, it states the switch to a fixed tail wheel occurred the same time as the larger main wheels during the autumn of 1942. To accommodate the larger wheels, a bulged fairing on the wing top was also required - so those wing bulges should indicate the later type tail wheel? regards, Jack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted January 28, 2018 Author Share Posted January 28, 2018 That's a good point. Shame in Lawzer's picture you can't see the tops of the wings clearly enough to tell if the one with the tailwheel down has wing bulges. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackG Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Sounds like you want to model a G-2 that flew during or after the fall of 1942, so the best you can do is search photos of the specific air frame. Also search unit history (whichever it may be) and find out when they received the G-2. The larger tires were likely first seen on the eastern front because of the rough airfields there - but that's just me reading in between the lines ... regards, Jack 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted January 29, 2018 Author Share Posted January 29, 2018 I have a mind to build several G-2s going forward. The most immediate one in need of a tailwheel decision is a Finnish example, MT-213, fairly well photographed (also have the MMP camo booklet that includes it). It was delivered in 1943 but the wings clearly have no bulges and the main wheels are the early 5-spoke variety and parallel to the oleo strut. I'm trying to make a subjective call on how big the tailwheel looks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niknak Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 I thought the upper wing bulges wern't introduced until the g-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackG Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 17 minutes ago, Niknak said: I thought the upper wing bulges wern't introduced until the g-3 Do you have a source? All I can quote is Mushroom Models publication. Larger tires introduced in autumn of 1942 while G-2 was still in production til the end of 1942. G-4 production actually began before the G-3, the former has production dates beginning in Sept' 1942. ---------------------------------------- Interesting statement on this review, Finnish G-2 were all fitted with F-type wheels but many of them had the upper wing bulges. This a/c doesn't ... http://www.hyperscale.com/2016/galleries/bf109g2finnish32mdt_1.htm Have also read a discussion where pilots preferred to keep the tail wheel locked in the down position because ground conditions would foul up the retract mechanism. I'd imagine the same would hold true in snow/ice? https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/641790-Bf109-tail-wheel-Forums Again, I wish when people make such statements they would mention their source... ----------------------------------------- There is a couple photos of a Finnish G-2 MT-202 flying with the tail wheel down - pilot's choice, or.... https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109G/FAF/pages/Messerschmitt-Bf-109G2-FAF-HLeLv-MT-202-Finland-1943-03.html https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109G/FAF/pages/Messerschmitt-Bf-109G2-FAF-HLeLv-MT-202-Finland-1943-02.html regards, Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niknak Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, JackG said: Do you have a source? All I can quote is Mushroom Models publication. Larger tires introduced in autumn of 1942 while G-2 was still in production til the end of 1942. G-4 production actually began before the G-3, the former has production dates beginning in Sept' 1942. ---------------------------------------- Interesting statement on this review, Finnish G-2 were all fitted with F-type wheels but many of them had the upper wing bulges. This a/c doesn't ... http://www.hyperscale.com/2016/galleries/bf109g2finnish32mdt_1.htm Have also read a discussion where pilots preferred to keep the tail wheel locked in the down position because ground conditions would foul up the retract mechanism. I'd imagine the same would hold true in snow/ice? https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/641790-Bf109-tail-wheel-Forums Again, I wish when people make such statements they would mention their source... ----------------------------------------- There is a couple photos of a Finnish G-2 MT-202 flying with the tail wheel down - pilot's choice, or.... https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109G/FAF/pages/Messerschmitt-Bf-109G2-FAF-HLeLv-MT-202-Finland-1943-03.html https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109G/FAF/pages/Messerschmitt-Bf-109G2-FAF-HLeLv-MT-202-Finland-1943-02.html regards, Jack Yip, all of the following bf 109 late series( Richard Frank's) ( f to k) ht models bf 109 f- g-4, kagero bf 109 g/k. Bf 109 f, g, k series a illustrated study(prien rodeike) to name a few of the books I have, also Arthur Bentley's drawings, yip the g-4 was in service before the g-3, if there were g2 airframes fitted with g-3/4 wings thay could have been g-2s converted on the production lines like black 6 (g-2) which was started as a f-4 but was converted to a g-2 onto the production line. As it has some of the access panels of a f aswell as some of the gs as stated in the book black 6 restoration of a bf 109 by Russell snadden. The last wr no block for the g-2 14501-14850 built by wnf g-2,g-2/r3 were build (Oct 42- Dec 42). wnf started building the g-4 wr no block 14851-1500. 70 g-4 & 80 g-4/r3.(dec 42- Feb 43).the 1st g-4s were built by Eria. Eria build 58 g-4 troops. Wr no block 10864-10921( Jan 43) this is from the f 109 f, g, k series by john prien & Peter rodeike. Nick Edited January 29, 2018 by Niknak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackG Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Cheers Nik, thanks for that. Mushroom could be wrong then, but wonder if it's a matter of interpreting the literature, that is yes wing bulges were introduced with the G-3/4, but since the G-2 was still in production at that time, this too was incorporated in their construction? There is also this photo of MT-222, with wing bulges present which look to be a G-2. Factory build, or remodeled for delivery to Finland in March 1943? regards, Jack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted January 29, 2018 Author Share Posted January 29, 2018 Talking about G-3s is misleading since that's just the pressurised cockpit variant of the G-4, with the latter being the main production model. You can basically ignore the odd numbered Gustavs when talking about the evolution stages of the design. I was always under the impression that the landing gear improvements introduced with the G-4 were retrofitted to late production G-2s and that these aircraft were functionally identical except for some internals (radio). But that basically settles it for me. If there is evidence Finnish pilots were flying with the tailwheel down, possibly by choice, on G-2s that don't have the wing bulges (MT-202 does not) then I can have some confidence in doing the same for MT-213. Thanks all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niknak Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Vlad said: Talking about G-3s is misleading since that's just the pressurised cockpit variant of the G-4, with the latter being the main production model. You can basically ignore the odd numbered Gustavs when talking about the evolution stages of the design. I was always under the impression that the landing gear improvements introduced with the G-4 were retrofitted to late production G-2s and that these aircraft were functionally identical except for some internals (radio). But that basically settles it for me. If there is evidence Finnish pilots were flying with the tailwheel down, possibly by choice, on G-2s that don't have the wing bulges (MT-202 does not) then I can have some confidence in doing the same for MT-213. Thanks all! Hi just to throw a spanner into the works this is a passage in the new book (bf 109 late series f to k) which says early g-4 could have no wing bulges.as it was the change in the axle angle that required the wing bulge. Nick Edited January 29, 2018 by Niknak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackG Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Vlad, glad you were able to make a decision. The retrofitting of the larger tires is something I've yet to come across. Nik, that makes sense that the initial G-4 would not have the wing bulges. Their production began 09/42 (Mushroom does not provide a more specific date), while the problem with the undercarriage handling on less than favorable airstrips was finally addressed some time in the fall of that same year. regards, Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now