Jump to content

Interesting late war Bf-110G-4


Recommended Posts

 

Taken from the quite fascinating website: https://www.forcedlandingcollection.se/LW/LW121-Bf110.html  A very interesting 110 that was flown to Sweden in April, 1945, the pilot flew out with his wife and another Fraulein.   Very interesting overpainted camouflage and also, any idea what those pods are mounted under the wings?  Never seen that before.   Kind of surprising that there were still "day fighter" 110's still operational that late in the war.    Would love to see a color profile of this aircraft. 
 

 

 

L121-02.jpg

 

L121-03.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

They look (TO ME) like the supplemental (engine) oil tanks that were sometimes mounted beneath the fuselage of Bf 110D and Bf 110E aircraft for long-range missions.  I've never seen a pair mounted this way, either.  But I always prefer to think, 'yet,' as this machine (WNr.5678, DV+IZ), was with the test centre at Rechlin, it might be a one-off fitting.  I don't have a photo-hosting service, so cannot insert examples in this reply.

 

BTW, the other female passenger was Ltn. Schultze's mother-in-law.

 

GRM

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, G.R.Morrison said:

BTW, the other female passenger was Ltn. Schultze's mother-in-law.

 

This has the makings of an excellent sitcom.. ;) 

  • Haha 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Experimental Direction Finding loops or some other radio device that needed to be as far away from other metal as possible? I wouldn't have thought they would place oil tanks so far away from the engines on such long extensions for any reason.

 

Duncan B

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the mystery deepens!

This is from p. 95 of Widfeldt B. (1983) The Luftwaffe in Sweden 1939-1945 Monogram Boylston Ma USA

 

IMG_4054

 

As you can see the pods differ markedly from each other, plus there is a lateral aerial array on the port wing tip. 

The text refers to the port wing pod being a movie camera. 

The book also has a clearer shot of the camo scheme, which, as the text notes, is so heavily oversprayed as to almost obscure the national markings. 

Picture source: as above

 

IMG_4055

 

 

HTH

 

SD

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, if the pod under the port wing contained a movie camera, then maybe the pod under the starboard wing was likely just a 'blank' for balance/trim purposes?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if this aircraft was involved in testing very early A2A missiles?  Not sure what other use an externally mounted  movie camera would be?   This is something you see today on modern jets as they get qualified for various missiles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, 11bravo said:

I wonder if this aircraft was involved in testing very early A2A missiles?  Not sure what other use an externally mounted  movie camera would be?   This is something you see today on modern jets as they get qualified for various missiles. 

Possibly, but even in that situation, I can't really see how much use a fixed, forward facing camera - that isn't even 'line of sight' - would be...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Werdna said:

Just a thought, if the pod under the port wing contained a movie camera, then maybe the pod under the starboard wing was likely just a 'blank' for balance/trim purposes?

I could go with that - the camera is mounted right where it would have the most extreme effect upon trim in terms of yaw and the counter weight on the starboard side (if that's what it is) is aerodynamically shaped).

But what were they filming?

And what's the aerial?

Not being awkward, just speculating...

 

SD

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SafetyDad said:

I could go with that - the camera is mounted right where it would have the most extreme effect upon trim in terms of yaw and the counter weight on the starboard side (if that's what it is) is aerodynamically shaped).

But what were they filming?

And what's the aerial?

Not being awkward, just speculating...

 

SD

 

Given Graham's comment above that it may be a night fighter - and that it came from the Rechlin test centre - I'm wondering if this might have been some kind of experimental infra-red/night-vision set up.  On that basis, mounting the camera on the outer wing (maybe the other device is an IR lamp?) might have been the only realistic option for them, as most other inboard locations would have meant the prop circle interfering with the camera view.  I'm just guessing now....

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Werdna said:

 

Given Graham's comment above that it may be a night fighter - and that it came from the Rechlin test centre - I'm wondering if this might have been some kind of experimental infra-red/night-vision set up.  On that basis, mounting the camera on the outer wing (maybe the other device is an IR lamp?) might have been the only realistic option for them, as most other inboard locations would have meant the prop circle interfering with the camera view.  I'm just guessing now....

The Luftwaffe already had quite a bit of experience with IR on their early night fighters like the Dorniers with the light fitted in the nose and the camera through the front canopy. They gave up on it once they got reliable radar sets small enough to fit into the aircraft. A camera so far out from the centre line is not very useful for (remote) piloting so I would rule that out. They did fit cameras on long masts to aircraft to film the effects of various installations on the aerodynamics, but again, the positioning in this case isn't very useful. If the pod on the opposite wing is just ballast they could have got the same effect with less drag inducing structure by installing it directly out from the wingtip on a single pylon. It looks to me like they were trying to get that pod as far away from the rest of the structure as possible which might indicate it was sensitive to magnetic fields?  It's a mystery for sure.

 

Duncan B

 

Edit. Just looking at the photos again you can see that there is a cable secured to the camera pod by silver cable ties and there are silver bands at regular intervals on the middle leg on the other side (but the cable that I am guessing is there is not in view because anyone with a bit of sense would place it on the trailing edge of the strut)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TempestV said:

And a diorama :)

 

You're right - it would be a fantastic diorama!  Potential show winner.. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Werdna said:

how much use a fixed, forward facing camera - that isn't even 'line of sight' - would be...


Is the camera facing forward, or is the aperture aligned with another part of the airframe, such as the fuselage bomb rack or drop tank carriage areas?

 

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Werdna said:

maybe the other device is an IR lamp?


I can’t see any aperture at the front. Also, to my eye, I can’t make out any aperture cover on the front that would suggest an EO type sensor.

 

There does seem to be an aperture of sorts - or at least a break in the surface regularity - on the inboard surface of the streamlined pod.

 

Having said all that, it is a rather grainy shot to me...

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blimpyboy said:


Is the camera facing forward, or is the aperture aligned with another part of the airframe, such as the fuselage bomb rack or drop tank carriage areas?

 

 

Good question - I hadn't considered that, if I'm honest - and it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion.  I don't know enough (that is to say, I don't know anything at all) about cine cameras from that era to know whether the shape of the pod might suggest which way the camera is pointing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

Note that radio altimeter antenna (FuG 101 probably) has been moved on tip of a strut protruding from left wing tip. 

 

One explanation is that the altimeter antenna was optically in way and had to be relocated. But then it would have been enough to move the antenna outboard of the "tripod".

 

FuG 101 operates at 337 - 400 Mhz  - 75 - 89 cm wavelength - and such distance (or some specific ratio) would be needed to separate two antennas. Such separation looks to be the case (strut) so the pod has something to do with electormagnetic radiation? I don't know.

 

Cheers,

Kari

Edited by Kari Lumppio
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...