How good are your Bf-109 G10 eyes?

[Ray_W]

One of my upcoming Bf-109 builds is this aircraft from the excellent MMP Book on Bulgarian Fighter Colours 1919-1948 Vol. 2 by Dénes Bernád. A post war Bulgarian 109 in the Republican OF-Markings.

 

 

Mr Bernád says this aircraft was a G-10 with Werknummer 612737. This seems reasonable , making it a WNF G-10. Does the image support the claim? What can you see that identify this aircraft as a G-10?

 

Of course their were a number of vagaries, let's say mix-and-match with all matters 109 and being a late 40's possible early 50's aircraft some changes may of occurred to keep them flying. For example a possible canopy change. One thing for certain is there was no bicycle stowage .  

 

Here are some close-ups from the text. Someone may have better images. I hope they help. I need your expert eyes for the G-10 cowling changes. Any suggestion that it was a U14 mod? Those cannon/MG blisters suggest to me not a G-10.

 

 

I note this aircraft did not have the long wheel fairing,

 

 

 

I hope you can help. If it is a G-10, then I plan to do my own mix-and-match from the Eduard 1/48 kits.

 

Ray

[Jens]

It's not a G-10. It's a G-6/14.

I surely wouldn't trust the WNr unless it was clearly visible on the aircraft.

 

Jens

[Touvdal]

If is saw this picture for the first time i would say it was a G-6, based on the gun bulges, 3 piece canopy, small supercharge intake.

 

Maybe late based on large tail.

 

So maybe the Wn. is not correct.  Some of the 412000 row was produced at Erla with large tail.

 

Cheers

Jes

 

 

[Ray_W]

5 minutes ago, Jens said:

It's not a G-10. It's a G-6/14.

 

3 minutes ago, Touvdal said:

i would say it was a G-6, based on the gun bulges, 3 piece canopy, small supercharge intake.

 

I agree, I actually bought the G6 kit to build this and then on reading the text thought maybe not. The more I study the G-10 the more I agree. Thanks for the quick response.

 

Ray

[Jens]

The cowling on the G-10 is quite different to that of the G-6/14. As long as it has the bulges in front of the canopy it's almost certainly a G-6/14 (exceptions are limited to a few airframes fitted with whatever was at hand in the closing stages of the war).

 

Jens

[Ray_W]

1 minute ago, Jens said:

exceptions are limited to a few airframes fitted with whatever was at hand in the closing stages of the war

 

Thanks Jens,

 

Always that caveat. Seems many of the images are training accidents so I expect there was a lot of parts swapping going on using the old airframes. These aircraft soldiering on into the 1950's. Bernád has another image of a landing accident G-6/14 with G-10 wings.

 

I think to model this subject using the G-6 as a basis will be closest to what is pictured.

 

Ray

[Jens]

I am rather sure the G-10 wings would fit a G-6/14 fuselage (and vice versa), but cowling panels are different. They are basically aerodynamic covers for the engine, and the larger engine of the G-10 would not fit underneath the G-6/14 cowling panels. I am unsure whether it was possible to fit a G-10 engine to the G-6/14 firewall (surely the engine bearers should be replaced too). The Bf109K-4 that landed on the Danish island of Bornholm in May 1945 had a G-6/14 panel on one side, but don't ask me how they made it fit.

 

Jens

[Troy Smith]

9 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

 Bernád has another image of a landing accident G-6/14 with G-10 wings.

 

No such thing as G-10 wings.  Wings with large bulges were meant for wider wheels. They were fitted to all late 109s. But the only model that only used larger bulges exclusively was the K-4.

 

[Ray_W]

3 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

No such thing as G-10 wings

Thanks Troy for the clarification. 

[Graham Boak]

39 minutes ago, Jens said:

I am rather sure the G-10 wings would fit a G-6/14 fuselage (and vice versa), but cowling panels are different. They are basically aerodynamic covers for the engine, and the larger engine of the G-10 would not fit underneath the G-6/14 cowling panels. I am unsure whether it was possible to fit a G-10 engine to the G-6/14 firewall (surely the engine bearers should be replaced too). The Bf109K-4 that landed on the Danish island of Bornholm in May 1945 had a G-6/14 panel on one side, but don't ask me how they made it fit.

 

Jens

It was not a larger engine.  It was the same external size with a larger supercharger (from the DB603) which meant that the cowling needed to be altered on the port side.  The cowling was altered on the starboard side to form a more aerodynamic shape then the bulges on the G-6/14.  So a G-6/14 cowl would be possible to fit on the starboard side, at least in this area.  However, these later engines also had additional pipework under the nose which are seen externally as small bulges or a revised shape in this area on some G-10s.  It would have been necessary to open a hole or hammer out a bulge for an older design of cowl to fit over these pipes.

[tank152]

43 minutes ago, Jens said:

 The Bf109K-4 that landed on the Danish island of Bornholm in May 1945 had a G-6/14 panel on one side, but don't ask me how they made it fit.

 

Jens

Link to the said K4.

https://bornholmskebilleder.brk.dk/catalog/Bornholms Museum/r/99169/viewmode=infoview

[Jens]

9 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

It was not a larger engine.  It was the same external size with a larger supercharger (from the DB603) which meant that the cowling needed to be altered on the port side.  The cowling was altered on the starboard side to form a more aerodynamic shape then the bulges on the G-6/14.  So a G-6/14 cowl would be possible to fit on the starboard side, at least in this area.  However, these later engines also had additional pipework under the nose which are seen externally as small bulges or a revised shape in this area on some G-10s.  It would have been necessary to open a hole or hammer out a bulge for an older design of cowl to fit over these pipes.

That's what I meant with "a larger engine" (English isn't my first language ). I wasn't sure how to describe it, but it sure wouldn't fit underneath the G-6/14 cowling without some modification.

 

Jens

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Ray_W said:

Mr Bernád says this aircraft was a G-10 with Werknummer 612737. This seems reasonable , making it a WNF G-10. Does the image support the claim? What can you see that identify this aircraft as a G-10?

Hmm, not sure where my book is, was a crummy little tablet earlier.  From the pic, the nly 'G-10' feature is the tall tail.   the defining feature of the G-10 was  DB605 D engine, though out of need some were fitted with other engines. Otherwise G-10's had a possible mix of features. 

the Bulgarians had G-6 's in the war (which is what this look like) , and also got some ex Yugoslav G-10's post war.   I'll try to find my copy of the  book and see if i can get any more sense from that. 

 

Regarding the different engines, it easy enough to fit a DB605 A/AM engine into a AS or G-10 cowling, but not the otehr way around.   The latest JaPo book,, Messerschmitt Bf 109s & Other Aircraft of I./EKG(J)  https://japo.eu/products.php?cat=4 has some interesting infomation and photos on remanufactured 109's, but AFAIK, these were not in the Bulgarian supply chain.

 

I'll add in if I can think of anything else later.

[Graham Boak]

Understood.  I'm currently being annoyed by a couple of books translated from the Russian, where the translators (who generally seem to have done fine work) stumble over more technical/operational terms.  The repetition of "strengthened engines" where they mean more powerful, but in a context full of references to low reliability of said engines.  OK, annoyed is too strong, but it jars in what is not an easy read at best.  Not that I'd ever make a translator of any kind...

 

The problem with fitting an earlier version of the engine into a later cowl would be the reversion to a smaller intake.  Plus the engine bearers, I'd guess.

[Ray_W]

46 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

the Bulgarians had G-6 's in the war (which is what this look like) , and also got some ex Yugoslav G-10's post war. 

 

Hi Troy,

 

Bernád gives quite a detailed list trying to link Bulgarian war time and the more difficult revised post-war serial numbers with WNr.  Interesting that the Bulgarian 109's went to Yugoslavia, rather than the other way. This came out of the 1947 Paris Treaty limiting the aircraft Bulgaria could hold as part of the reparations penalty having fought on the Axis side. Also, I see mention of a separate deal based on Belgrade's war reparations demand. Bulgaria had previously received a number of trophy Bf-109's to add to their German supplied aircraft. In total, I see a list of different types for the Gustav in Bulgarian service - G-2, G-6, G-14, G-10.  

 

Great responses from everyone, as usual, adding to my very limited knowledge on the 109 in general, and the G-10's in particular. I feel pretty comfortable portraying White 30 as a high fin G-6/14.

 

Ray

[Graham Boak]

Quick diversion: "JAS" Storrar's Yak 9M was a Bulgarian aircraft being transferred to Yugoslavia, which went adrift.  Part of the same reorganisation?

[Ray_W]

1 minute ago, Graham Boak said:

Quick diversion: "JAS" Storrar's Yak 9M was a Bulgarian aircraft being transferred to Yugoslavia, which went adrift.  Part of the same reorganisation?

 

Worthy of a topic in its own right. The transfer of aircraft thing is very murky. 

[Troy Smith]

19 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

Interesting that the Bulgarian 109's went to Yugoslavia, rather than the other way.

Distracted by life, yes, Bulgaria to Yugoslavia....  I remembered this

 

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/610937/610937.htm

 

Messerschmitt 109G-10 / U4 W.Nr.610937 

Built in 1944 by WNF most likely as a G-14 , but upgraded to a G-10/U4 ‘Jabo-Rei’ in December 1944. Abandoned at Zeltweg airfield in Austria at the end of the war , her original tactical markings will probably never be known. She could have been from a Luftwaffe unit or just as likely a Hungarian one , as both countries were using this airfield at the time. 

Between May and August 1945, 610937 and many other aircraft were taken as trophies by units from the 6th Polk, (regiment) of the Bulgarian Air Force and ferried to Bulgaria , via Pech airfield , Hungary and Belgrade , Yugoslavia. Little is is known about the service history of these Bulgarian Me-109s. Many were transferred from the Karlovo airfield to the Burshen airfield near Silven and were actively flown by the 2nd and 3rd Orlyak (group) of the 6th Polk until they converted to Yak-9. Some 109s went on to serve in the training role as late as 1950, with the last of them being scrapped in 1951.

 In 1947, the Paris Peace Treaty limited the size of Bulgaria's Air Force and some of its excess aircraft were sent to Yugoslavia in military equipment trade negotiations between the two countries. 610937 became part of a shipment of 59 Me109s to be traded for a number of fuselages and tail units of Il-2 Sturmoviks. After being transported to Zagreb by rail, the aircraft were refurbished, repainted and 610937 became “White 44”, Yugoslav Air Force s/n 9644. White 44 was flown by either the 83rd or 172nd fighter wing based at Cerklje Airfield and may have been flown on patrol sorties along the Italian frontier during the confrontation between Yugoslavia and Italy over the free zone of Trieste. White 44’s last recorded flight was October 17, 1950. Total flight time in service: 35 hrs.15 mins.

 

sadly...

"One further point... take special note of the fuselage skin in the interior.  The factory stamping on the bare aluminum is bright and clear, and I've put up an enlarged scan so that most of the stamp is legible.  This, sadly, is the only documentation I am aware of for this feature as Evergreen stripped the skins off of the airframe without bothering to go through layers of paint to determine the original markings of the airframe, and promptly shipped them off to the local recycler.  I'll withhold further comment on that point.  :("

 

 

49 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The problem with fitting an earlier version of the engine into a later cowl would be the reversion to a smaller intake.  Plus the engine bearers, I'd guess.

IIRC there are images in the Japo book showing this, the engine mount points on the firewall I think stayed the same, and  i'd be surprised in the larger intake was a major problem.  But, that would mean retaing the main engine covers,  with the smoothed out bulges.   the image shows a standrd G-/14 A/AM cowling.   The front section could be swapped, but AFAIK,   As the K-$ in Denmark shows, the rear section of this bulges was riveted on

I suspect this may have beeen a lash up to get the plane to fly to escape the advancing Soviets, as this does not look combat worthy.

 

Now, where are those Bulgarian books?

[Graham Boak]

It certainly looks neither combat worthy nor flight worthy, from the photograph in the link above.  But it has clearly been hacked about roughly, presumably since landing.  Quite what it looked like before then requires other photographs.

 

The engine isn't going to run ideally unless the intake is matched to its requirements.  Not an expert here, but I suspect an over-large intake may mean less problems than a too-small one.  Particularly if no attempt is made to run at maximum throttle or high speed.  In the days before adjustable intakes, some spill drag would be accepted when the engine was requiring less air than the intake could be providing.  Which is still true nowadays.

[Super Aereo]

I think Dénes Bernád was pointing out the oddity of the Wr.N. seemingly attributed to the aircraft, rather than suggesting the aircraft itself was a G-10.

[Wulfman]

I’d say it’s either a G-6 or a G-14, either way I’m going to have a bash at it so thanks for the photos !

 

Wulfman

[MDriskill]

I enthusiastically second Troy's recommendation of the new JaPo book on I./EKG(J). It is superb, and the notes on aircraft that went through repair / rebuild centers is quite amazing. These were the source of quite a few anomalies to say the least.

 

Interesting trivia on the G-6 and G-14 - even finding the serial may not settle the variant! The functional difference between them was the G-14's MW 50 power-boost system (otherwise each was seen with a bewildering array of canopies, fin/rudder assemblies, internal equipment, access hatch/panel line variations, etc.). The MW 50 components were contracted and furnished separately by the government, but with many supply problems late in the war. There are numerous documented instances of aircraft being built as G-14's, but accepted into service as G-6's, because MW 50 was missing.

Edited May 27, 2021 by MDriskill

[Jochen Barett]

I don't quite understand this G 6/10/14 business.

 

The pictures are showing a 109 G, that's for sure, the rest is a question of features visible (MG 131 bulges, smallish air intake, (vented) three part canopy, glass head armour, snallish antenna mast plus ring antenna, tall tail (trim tabs guessable), small tail wheel, small wing bulges, ...), well to me.

 

So what would be the benefit of "it's a G6!" or "G10! or ...? Would that lead to any hints regarding the paint? Like "everybody knows the Bulgarian 109G6s were painted in yellow with two tones of brown! Wheras the Bulgarian G10s were all pale green underside and read and blue camo stripes!"? Or would it just be a more educated guess regarding cockpit instrumentation and the color of the seat belts?

[Graham Boak]

Well, it could (not saying it would) help yu to model parts of the aircaft that you can't see  in the photo.  But I suspect some people do like to stick labels onto things, if they add some information.  After all, "here's a model of a Gustav" doesn't actually tell you very much.  Knowledge is a good thing in itself, even if this disappears down into minute and arguably irrelevant details.  For me, modelling is more interesting when set into historical context, and understanding the differences between G-6,14 and 10 does help understand the reasons behind these differences, and the progress of the war in Germany.  Perhaps less so in Bulgaria or other export customers, who just have to take what they were offered.

 

But when you are interested in learning, where do you stop?

[Ray_W]

Well I started this thread not knowing much about G-10's. Straight away the typical G-10 features were raised such as a more powerful engine, increased supercharge intake, altered cowling, variation in undercarriage and possible change to wing fairing - not visible in the image. So the image is more G-6/14 than G-10 and tells me which kit provides the best place to start. Armed with a selection of Eduard bits and pieces that would allow me to model pretty much any variant with all its nuances including post war mish-mash of goodness knows what they used to keep it flying, further raised my interest level.

 

The research element of the hobby, the history and then execution in a suitable model is what I enjoy. I do not expect to get them perfect. Much will still be guesswork, but I enjoy filling in the knowledge gaps as much as reasonably possible and appreciate the input from members on this site and the broader discussion. 

 

I find the whole progression and variations of the Bf-109 very interesting.