Jump to content

SafetyDad

Gold Member
  • Posts

    1,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About SafetyDad

  • Birthday 05/08/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Derwentside, NE England

Recent Profile Visitors

2,412 profile views

SafetyDad's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

1.6k

Reputation

  1. I think it's the Bf 109K prototype, built by Erla. WNF. I'm away from my books, but I'll look for confirmation. Or a repaired late G being tested at Erla - they used overall very light primer on completion of repairs' SD
  2. Tom, after following your vac builds, and watching your incredible workarounds to the problems they've presented, I can assure you that an Anigrand resin build will be a Sunday afternoon stroll in comparison! SD
  3. This picture at the foot of this capture? Source is JaPo Bf 109K Vol 2 - my usual distortion to discourage further replication, and posted for the purpose of research/discussion. I'm confident that the tail marking is not a shadow. It is a bit of a puzzle though - the best explanation I can provide is that it's part of the hard-edged camouflage visible on the remainder of the fuselage JaPo also provide artwork (which I won't upload for Copyright reasons), but these two pictures, plus the frontal colour shot in the linked thread) are pretty comprehensive coverage of such a late-war machine. Older viewers may recall the text in the Monogram Close-Up on the Bf 109K, where Thomas Hitchcock was pretty sure that his slim volume contained all the existing pictures of the Bf 109K. What a lot we've learned since! (And I still treasure my Close-Ups!). SD
  4. Postscript for you Tom less about the colours and more about the airframe. Your airframe doesn't seem to appear in the list of Bu Nos earmarked for B-32 training: plus it doesn't have an OM nose code like these although apparently the OM code wasn't universally displayed. Compare the noses of the TB-32s above with your chosen bird - I don't think yours is a TB-32. More likely, as has been said above, the guns have been removed. See this Finally, yours has de-icer boots on the tail - not universal on B-32s - only used on later airframes All pics from Wolf W, (2006) 'Consolidated B-32 Dominator' Schiffer SD
  5. Perhaps you're thinking of the later intakes used on the Fw 190D-11s and beyond? These aircraft had uprated Jumo 213F engines that needed greater air throughput to maximise their efficiency. As far as I'm aware, all Fw 190D-9s used the same circular cross section intake (as is being discussed here) SD
  6. I think a slight footnote might be merited, as I'm mindful of the old adage 'never say never' (especially when the Luftwaffe is involved!) and re-reading my post above I'm a little uneasy with the certainty I've expressed. If our speculation is correct, then this Fw 190 would have been a second line aircraft, and as such, probably not involved in combat (although a few prototype aircraft were flown operationally). If non-combatant, then the urgency driving improvisation to airframes would likely not exist. Occasionally some aircraft did have in-field modifications made to propellers - I'm thinking of early Seafires, where I seem to recall their blades were cropped (by six inches??) to reduce damage on carrier landings due to blades 'pecking' the deck during a wire-caught landing. However, here the urgency to maintain combat operations, combined with some workshop facilities on-board a carrier to make these mods to tolerances, provided the driving force for this. Also, there was no option out in the middle of the ocean - this modification was essential. Others may know more about these Seafires (not my specialist area) @Troy Smith? @Graham Boak? SD
  7. You are absolutely right - the tail of this aircraft is certainly a replacement if my hypothesis about this being a D-12 or D-13 prototype is correct. The wider tail was intended eventually to be an option for all later 190 aircraft - Crandall points out the wreck of a 190A series airframe at Erfurt fitted with this tail. That's quite the rarity, even for the end of the war. The tail was easily changed and exchanged on Fw 190s - there are many photos showing the mismatching of paint between the fuselage and tail on these aircraft. Not surprising, as the tails were built by subcontractors. Speaking of contractors, you're probably aware that there has been extensive work undertaken by authors, most notably JaPo, to identify the differing paintwork patterns used by each manufacturer of Fw 190 airframe components. I take your point about the improvisation shown when operational needs require - another example is the late war Bf 109G found in Denmark with AS shaped cowling skinning on the port side of the fuselage, and an older Buele bump cowling somehow wedged into place on the starboard side. In the same way, I'm cautious about the canopy type - it's not visible in the pictures. Late war canopies were bulged, but Fw had a habit of using the older 'flat' canopies on prototypes such as the D-11 and even some Ta 152s. So personally, I think that type is more likely. But these were easily changed and exchanged, so either type is possible. However, propellers are different. These have to match the fittings available on the engine drive shaft, and also be compatible with the power rating of the engine itself, as well as being balanced. As I understand it, there's not that much room to improvise. The manufacturers, such as VDM, were very prescriptive about the matching of prop to engine and there was little leeway for improvisation. Even the balance weights used on the blades were subject to clear and unambiguous directives. The prop was too critical to airframe safety to allow in-field adaptations to be permitted. For me I think the key clues for the identification of this airframe originate elsewhere in the photo. The wing size, the engine bearer shape, the supercharger intake size are all fairly clear in the photos and offer the most significant clues for a pretty definitive identification of the variant as a post 190D airframe (and initially a real puzzle to all of us). The markings offered the lead in to the idea of a D-12/13 prototype hypothesis, and the prop type is supplementary supportive evidence to the other factors just described. But I'm happy to concede that this idea of a D-12/13 prototype is still hypothetical. In favour of this, the photographic evidence supports this hypothesis, and, if the location is Erfurt, then this too helps as this site was identified as the manufacturer of the Ta 152 style tail. These pieces of evidence have combined to convince me (and it seems others on the thread), but I fully accept that others may take a differing viewpoint, depending upon the credence they award the identifiers listed above from these photos. And an open, constructively-expressed differing perspective, as you've offered, always adds to the value of debate and discussion in my book. HTH SD
  8. I've checked in Pat Carty's Secret Squadrons of the 8th AF, and I can't see any pictures where a similar Loran aerial fit is visible on the B-24s illustrated. The photos in the book aren't exactly numerous, so it could be there and just not easy to see. On the other hand, the Carpetbagger illustrated in Streetly's book ('Bama Bound, Lovely Libba I think), doesn't have this aerial. SD
  9. @Dave Swindell is absolutely right - LORAN fitted to B-24s required an external aerial. It's not always easy to see in photos, but once you've spotted it, then it becomes easier to make out in other pics. Martin Streetly describes it below: and it looked like this, running parallel to the fuselage from a support just aft of the nose turret, to another support behind the cockpit windows on the port side. See the scrap views of B-24s C and J below. and in real life you can just make it out All photos from here, and posted solely for the purpose of research/discussion in accordance with UK Copyright Law SD
  10. I bought this sheet a while ago I haven't used any of the options yet, but I did note that some of the research behind the sheet seemed a little lacking - the RAF Fortress ECM aircraft take a bit of unravelling, and the DK instructions omitted some key points such as Cheyenne tail turrets - were they used or not? DK says not, but Martin Streetley says it was on the option provided on the sheet. The RAF codes also seem a little brighter than I would expect, although a gentle overspray of smoke might tone that down. On the upside, plenty of options on my sheet so it scores on the value-for-money stakes. I suppose it depends on how well you know your subject, and whether DK's research agrees with yours. HTH SD
  11. I've had a skim through some of my references, and this might not be an easy question to answer. A big obstacle to being able to pin down any change is the availability, or rather the non-availability, of photos. As photos are very often taken on the ground, from the height of the photographer, the seat is not visible. Even pictures taken by an observer on the wing root don't help much. And these often have a pilot who, very inconsiderately, blocks our view. Neither the Prien and Rodeike book, nor the Monogram German Interiors volume, make any mention within their text of this change of seat. The best I can offer is this heavily retouched image (perhaps from a wartime handbook?) This image is from the Monogram book, and appears in the section on the Bf 109F-2 SD
  12. And a +1 from me. To my eyes your choice of PR scheme also seems to have the happy, if unintended, effect of toning down the nose faults with the Academy kit. The nose looks more in proportion than other camouflaged builds I've seen of this kit. Great overall job SD
  13. Martin Pegg in Schlachtfleiger 'Luftwaffe Ground Attack Units 1937-1945 P.43 states that 4.SG2 still had three Hs 123s on strength in November 1944! SD
×
×
  • Create New...