External differences between Bf109G-14AS and Bf109G-10

[Duncan B]

My old grey cells aren't what they used to be so I'm needed in some help from the 'Experten' with regards to the external differences between Regensburg built Bf109G-14As and the same Factory's G-10. From what I can remember MTT only built  a few hundred (if that) G-10s and they were all converted from G-6AS and G-14AS airframes rather than new builds. 

 

I am building a Finemolds 1/72 Bf109G-10 MTT at the moment and thought I might build it as a G-14AS instead so it's just things that would be noticeable in that scale that I am really interested in. So far I have come up with the G-14AS had the smaller oil tank and an aerial mast but can't see any other external differences other than those. (Some used as night fighters had the exhaust shrouds fitted too)

 

Duncan B

[tempestfan]

Wasn’t there a bulge for a larger oil pump on D engines (or the other way around)?

[Super Aereo]

It would be advisable to check photos of the example you want to reproduce: oil pump bulges absent and smaller turbocharger intake on some early G-14/AS, otherwise oil tank filler cap position (on all MTT), possibly different wheel bulges on the wings and different size wheels, absence of heating tube in the back of the cockpit, different tail unit.

 

These are the main things I'd check, off the top of my head.

[72modeler]

Duncan,

 

This link might help, if you haven't already seen it. IPMS Stckholm also did a fairly good photo and text review of the G-10., but might not be the same version that you are modeling. The Valiant Wings reference on the late model Bf-109's would also be a good reference to examine.

Mike

 

http://www.hyperscale.com/2018/reviews/kits/eduard82119reviewbg_1.htm

 

https://www.ipmsstockholm.se/home/messerschmitt-bf-109g-10-in-detail/

 

 

[Roman Schilhart]

Duncan,

the fuselage of the G10 is identical to the G14AS.

The only external difference is the larger wheel bumps on the G10 (the G14AS had the smaller wheels).

Both variants feature the bigger supercharger intake and larger oil cooler, as well as a revised starboard nose panel.

 

 

[Super Aereo]

Not all G-10 had larger wheels (the WNF ones still had smaller wheels and small bulges on the wing), and the position of the oil tank filler cap will be different. Ditto for the several variations of the rudder.

 

Jean-Claude Mermet's writings are probably the best reference available at the moment for the late G series: Aéro-Journal hors-série N°1 (in French), and/or Messerschmitt Bf 109 published by Caraktere (available in French and in English).

 

An older (self-published) summary of his studies was Les Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-1 a K-4 - Moteurs et Amenagements, which is from the 1990's and can be sometimes found in PDF format.

 

BF 109 Late Versions: Camouflage & Markings by the late Krzysztof Wolowski (Mushroom Model) is also not bad, although some of the colour profiles are debatable.

 

Poruba's books are also very interesting but so far have only covered WNF production and, in passing, Erla.

 

I am afraid that when it comes to Bf 109 variants nothing is simple...

[Duncan B]

15 hours ago, Roman Schilhart said:

Duncan,

the fuselage of the G10 is identical to the G14AS.

The only external difference is the larger wheel bumps on the G10 (the G14AS had the smaller wheels).

Both variants feature the bigger supercharger intake and larger oil cooler, as well as a revised starboard nose panel.

 

 

Almost identical would be a more accurate term  but for 1/72 scale as we build I know what you mean Roman. As stated below by Super Aero they didn't all have larger wheels or the corresponding wheel bumps, the MTT built (converted?) airframes had the smaller wheels of their donor airframes (G-6AS & G-14AS). The oil filler point will need to be filled and rescribed in the lower position on my Finemolds G-10 and the cold start valve hatch on the other side will need the same but other than that I think the kit needs nothing else done to convert it (I am not worried about any cockpit differences as it'll be closed anyway).

15 hours ago, Super Aereo said:

Not all G-10 had larger wheels (the WNF ones still had smaller wheels and small bulges on the wing), and the position of the oil tank filler cap will be different. Ditto for the several variations of the rudder.

 

Jean-Claude Mermet's writings are probably the best reference available at the moment for the late G series: Aéro-Journal hors-série N°1 (in French), and/or Messerschmitt Bf 109 published by Caraktere (available in French and in English).

 

An older (self-published) summary of his studies was Les Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-1 a K-4 - Moteurs et Amenagements, which is from the 1990's and can be sometimes found in PDF format.

 

BF 109 Late Versions: Camouflage & Markings by the late Krzysztof Wolowski (Mushroom Model) is also not bad, although some of the colour profiles are debatable.

 

Poruba's books are also very interesting but so far have only covered WNF production and, in passing, Erla.

 

I am afraid that when it comes to Bf 109 variants nothing is simple...

I've never read any of Mermet's books on the 109 but have seen some of his writings online. I do have lots of other books on them though and as you say, nothing is simple! As this is a quick build of the Finemolds 1/72 MTT G-10 into a G-14AS I will only be concerned with the obvious external differences. The main things I'll have to change on the kit are the locations of the oil filler and the cold start valve (there are 2 round hatches one above the other on the right hand engine cover and the hatch for the cold start moves depending on which version). The wing wheel bulges are the correct small size already and there is a choice of rudder types included in the kit (or in the AZ kit which I have plenty of). I already have decals for a G-14AS so am sorted. I found decals for a G-6AS in my stash too so a little swapping around of kit parts between my Finemolds stash might well see that one appear soon too.

 

Duncan B 

[JackG]

As I understand it,  the aircraft types being discussed here (G-14AS and G-10), the AS versions were rebuilt from existing air frames, while the G-10 could have done this as well, along with combining components of earlier G models.  That's why  you can find a number of  combinations in the variety of details for either. 

 

For AS versions, the style (or manner) of the rebuilt cowl was how it could be determined from which factory they came from.  Does the same hold true for the G-10s?  Also, when rebuilt, would they be assigned new werk numbers, or retain the old one?

 

In the Mushroom publication,  it states the G-10 had the 'main wheel legs spaced apart' (adopted from the K model) but a comparison of their line drawings do not show any difference.  Nor can I find this detail mentioned in text or drawing form elsewhere (Squadron's 109 in Action or the 109Lair website).  Could it just be an error in translation?

 

regards,

Jack

[Duncan B]

2 hours ago, JackG said:

As I understand it,  the aircraft types being discussed here (G-14AS and G-10), the AS versions were rebuilt from existing air frames, while the G-10 could have done this as well, along with combining components of earlier G models.  That's why  you can find a number of  combinations in the variety of details for either. 

 

For AS versions, the style (or manner) of the rebuilt cowl was how it could be determined from which factory they came from.  Does the same hold true for the G-10s?  Also, when rebuilt, would they be assigned new werk numbers, or retain the old one?

 

In the Mushroom publication,  it states the G-10 had the 'main wheel legs spaced apart' (adopted from the K model) but a comparison of their line drawings do not show any difference.  Nor can I find this detail mentioned in text or drawing form elsewhere (Squadron's 109 in Action or the 109Lair website).  Could it just be an error in translation?

 

regards,

Jack

My understanding is that MTT Regensburg built roughly 120 G-10s (they were from the 130xxx batch) by reworking G-6As and G-14AS airframes. These MTT built G-10s did carry two ID plates, one for the original airframe and another for the 'new build' G-10 with it's new Werk No. The cowls were slightly different as produced by MTT, WNF and ERLA with ERLA's being the most obviously different. (Off the top of my head I can't remember if Diana's was the same as WNF's or if it was also unique to that factory.)

 

With regards to the undercarriage leg spacing, I have also read in at least one publication that the legs were moved further apart on the G-10 and K-4 but I have also read in more publications that the only alteration to the wheel spacing/track was due to the larger wheel/tyre combination. I have no evidence one way or the other but increasing the size (width) of the wheels and or tyres would definitely alter the track so I am more willing to accept that explanation than the change in actual leg geometry but that is only my opinion.

 

Duncan B

[FalkeEins]

The track of the landing gear of the G-6 series is given as 2062 mm in the Handbücher of the G-5, G-6 and G-8 series, wheres in the respective Handbücher of the G-10 and K-4 series the track is given as 2065 / 2100 mm. The difference between the earlier series and the G-10/K-4 seems to come solely from the different main wheels used, the 2065 mm referring to the original main wheels, the 2100 mm to the enlarged 690 x 160 wheels. 

 

the idea that the gear legs were somehow spaced 'differently' - as stated in that IPMS Stockholm 'walkaround' among others - is incorrect.

 

[Duncan B]

17 minutes ago, FalkeEins said:

The track of the landing gear of the G-6 series is given as 2062 mm in the Handbücher of the G-5, G-6 and G-8 series, wheres in the respective Handbücher of the G-10 and K-4 series the track is given as 2065 / 2100 mm. The difference between the earlier series and the G-10/K-4 seems to come solely from the different main wheels used, the 2065 mm referring to the original main wheels, the 2100 mm to the enlarged 690 x 160 wheels. 

 

the idea that the gear legs were somehow spaced 'differently' - as stated in that IPMS Stockholm 'walkaround' among others - is incorrect.

 

Thanks for confirming that. I did think that the change was solely down to the increase in wheel size. 

 

Duncan B