A strange Bf 109E...
 

Hello,

A couple of days ago a number of photos showing a strangely equipped Bf 109E was posted on a Polish discussion forum ( http://www.odkrywca-online.com/pokaz....php?id=150283 ). Sadly, the discussion itself led to no definitive answers about the purpose or properties of the strut suspended under the aircraft. The guy who posted the photos states, he had some of them from his friend, a Luftwaffe collector, while he received the rest via internet from Spain... Strange enough? :)
Does anybody have any ideas what was this installation intended for? There were many theories - e.g. a flamethrower, refuelling pipe, shaft for towing gliders - none too convincing...

http://www.odkrywca-online.com/picsforum9/109_rura.jpg

http://www.odkrywca-online.com/picsf...09_detalik.jpg

http://www.odkrywca-online.com/picsf..._ruradetal.jpg

http://www.odkrywca-online.com/picsf..._rura_copy.jpg

http://www.odkrywca-online.com/picsforum9/109__wrak.jpg

http://www.odkrywca-online.com/picsforum9/pipe_cr.jpg

Kind regards

Grzegorz Plonski

This was also discussed the other day at HyperScale. I particulary favor the idea that it may be a reproductive organ.

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cg...;show_parent=1

I am of the opinion that this was a smoke discharge device to make it more difficult to accurately shoot at the aircraft. Another possibilty is a flamethrower. At least two photographs exist showing two pipes protruding from the tail of a German bomber. One photo shows the flamethrower ignited while in flight. Source: Geheimprojekte der Luftwaffe, Band III.



Ed

...and there was a lengthy discussion here too - http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeex...picID=29.topic

Those shots came from my site...
 

... they were sent to me back in 2001 by a friend with the exact same question. He got them from his father, a P-47 crewman in Europe. I redid the page in 2002 and a couple of the images seem to have gone missing- I need to fix that.

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articl...in/t_drain.htm

I certainly don't mind them being spread around, but proper credit would be nice... :)

Now, as to what it is, someone has suggested it is a smoke layer... all well and good, but that's an awfully large amount of kit for such a procedure. I had also heard it might've been involved in high-altitude deicing trials, but it would have to carry a LOT of water to dispense as ice crystals... so ultimately, who knows! :)

Lynn

Hi Lynn... credit for the image has been added to the thread on the LEMB linked above... :D Great image nonetheless...

Thanks for the links!
O boy, how could I overlook these discussions earlier? :evil:

Regards

Grzesiu

Didn't the Luftwaffe have a standard smoke dispenser?

The type I have in mind doesn't look anything like this.

Certainly know how the Soviet dispenser looked and its also very different in design, these things would probably not look too different in basic shape and design dictated by function.

Hmm, I do not see any hose, pipe nor inlet/outlet. Frankly, it looks like a mast for a small yacht. I think someone noted that it is similar to some TV antennas flown by US aircraft post-war. Perhaps this is a simple question for someone interested in history of electronics?
Also, the loss should appear on some loss lists, should not it?

modified Bf 109T
 

Since the Bf 109T was originally intended for the German Navy, and 109Ts were in fact used for convoy patrols in 1941-1942, my guess is that this example was used to test a smoke generator for shipping protection. The huge size and bulk of the equipment is surprising, but this is true whatever its purpose -- "overengineering" is all I can say.

Strange 109
 

Hi,

Not my usual area but to me it actually looks like some form of launching rail. Something launched along it would certainly miss the prop. From the fittings visible I think that this rail could also be dumped whilst in the air from a control in the cockpit.

Okay I hear you all cry, ' Stick to Heinkel 111s you might know a bit more about them'!!!

Regards

David

Well, where are markings experts? The aircraft wears a dark non-factory camouflage - I would date it 1942 and later - too late for a Toni trials. Note the spinner in green/white quick recognition scheme - not later than 1944?
I stand by my comment the thing most likely was a LW (ULW?) aerial, lowered in flight - note lack of paint on it. Purpose of LW is long range communication and ULW also communication with submarines. That would make sense but why to test it on such a small aircraft like 109?

thoughts
 

Hi,
I had my thoughts about smoke laying on another board, still can't see how it would be practical.
However the launching rails ideas , and having just had a nice glass of wine, made me think.
If the rail is jettisonable and it is a 109T,
Could the launching rail, not be to launch a weapon, but to launch the 109 ? the angle seems right to clear the prop on take off from a ramp.
A bit like a CAM hurricane, to give the german navy ships much needed fighter support, having no aircraft carriers ?
Might be a nice asset to a german raider, when spotted by an allied recce a/c, more punch than an AR-196.
But as I said I have just had a glass of nice bulgarian wine.
Cheers
Jerry

The earlier catapult trials didn't show the need for such a device, why in this case? What would be the logic behind fixing such a device to the aircraft in the first place?

thoughts
 

Hi,
As i said just some thoughts, But just as wild are , towing bars, and smoke laying with a single engined fighter, etc...
One odd thing there seems no sign of the rails in the crash photos, which gives points to the previous suggestion they are jettisonable.
But a lot of wartime ideas seem to have no logic when looked at afterwards.
Cheers
Jerry

It looks like an armlike structure, the piece attached to the ETC looks like a joint, almost looking like a test version of the feeler arm used on the Bv 143.

IMHO such a test setup seems more logical than a fixed launching device which on top is placed at an angle of the flight path.

The Bf 109T was still a small single engine fighter, probably ideally suited to test technology that was aimed at a naval cruise missile/glide bomb.

Actually unless I see a better explanation, I think I like my guess best :wink:

From the HyperScale Plane Talking -forum thread (direct link given earlier by Modeldad).

"William
German Navy used this 109-T for
Mon Jan 24, 2005 17:45
24.67.253.203

Shore battery tests..It is a Naval Smoke Generator, Field fixed to the Airframe."

When asked about source the answer was:


When asked about source the answer was:


"William
Showed this pic to a retired Luftwaffe pilot
Mon Jan 24, 2005 21:48
24.67.253.203

four years ago.(he,s well into his 80,s)..thats what he said it was..the idea was that in case of invasion they wanted to "Obscure" the coastal batteries with smoke thus protecting them from Allied naval guns..If you look at it it will CLICK..could,t have been used at high altitude for anything(its what I told him everybody thought it was)he said way too much drag..its what caused the crash at low landing speed...and for icing trials..well you,d have to get way up there and carry hundeds of gallons of water,no.
The long pipe was just to keep the pilots view clear as he made his low altitude run in front emplacements while smoke poured ot behind him."


Now,

How should we value the statement/message above? Is it genuine?

I think the answer William gives is the most plausible. Ammunition bin storage area within the nose of Bf 109E would provide enough room for smoke agent. For example Piper Pawnee has it's spray tank like that - forward of cockpit. Bf 109 would have provided a fast way to lay smoke screen if emergency arised.


It might interest people that FinnAF did actually fly Bf 109 with smoke generator under belly. This happened post war. I don't know many such flights total was done but one flight was during a mock attack against "enemy" air field during war games. The smoke screen was drawn between AAA guns and the target they protected. That way the Bf 109 JaBos could make their attack more easily. At least that is how I remember it from my reading.

I don't know what the Finnish smoke generator it was - it was just called "can" or somesuch. Captured soviet ones were used with (also captured) SB bombers during the war. It seems the long pipe underneath was not needed, even for the Bf 109.

I wonder if the idea of using Bf 109 as smoke generator plane came from Germany or if it was just result of not much else being available. Planes with interior bomb bay were/are prohibited for FinnAF according the peace agreement of 1948.

Cheers,
Kari

If it is a navy type smoke generator, shouldn't it be recognizable as such by those with more Naval expertise? Also wouldn't such a device look similar regardless of country dictated by its function?

So the first step, to see if the quote is worth anything, is to look for Naval smoke generators, or even start with smoke generators in general.

I'm almost certain that I've seen a photo of an a/c laying an aerial smoke screen, however I'm not sure anymore about the type, it could have been german, but it might have been a Russian or Japanese a/c (the latter probably a E13A). Starting to mix up subjects.

I think looking for similar devices would be a good start to proof or disproof the thesis.

OTOH, it does look similar to the altitude probe I was talking about - visually speaking.

Photos of RAF smokelayers are at recent 2 TAF book. They are definetelly different. The thing on the 109 does not look like a pipe at all - where is the exhaust for the smoke?

Air-to-air refuling
 

I have recenlty seen a drawing of Bf 109 over the multi-engine plane, with lowered 'device' that connected to the plane below and refueled Bf 109 in flight thru that 'device'.

Crazy or tested?

Maybe Militararchive Freiburg can tell?

All the best,

Marko

Guys,

First of all: How do you see it is a Bf 109 T? I'm not so firm with 109 versions so I'd just like to have that fixed.

Perhaps a dumb question, but: What would be the reason to attach a smoke generator externally?
1. The heat it generates
2. Space for it
3. Jettisonable
As it doesn't seem that there is much space in the lengthy thing for containing the fuel to burn (plus this wouldn't be sensible considering the attachment of it) I'm not so sure about it being a smoke generator.

I absolutely am against a possible use as a launching rail - just watch the direction the thing is facing when the aircraft is in flight. It's facing a dead angle for the pilot.

Has anybody ever thought of this as some kind of electronic device?
("Mausi" pops up in the back of my head...)
Possible reasons for an electronic device:
1. Parallel inclination to flight path not necessarily important
2. The type of attachment (only two fixation points for such a long device)
3. The one employed by the Grumman OV-1D Mohawk reminds me of it...
4. Needs to be free of obstacles - so an external attachment is sensible
5. The aircraft employed could be an indication for electronic testing as well - in late WWII a Bf 109 E/T was not really competitive any more and could therefore have been an ideal testbed for single engine (Bf 109) attachment of this device. IIRC Werneuchen was the E-Stelle for electronic equipment - did anybody try to make the link already? Did they have Bf 109 E/T?

What do you think?

Cheers, Azi.

Edit: Thought of an additional reason...

Point is that Aerial smoke generators tend to be the same as chemical gas dispenser. These tend to look the same. The RAF example looking very similar to the Soviet variant, I didn't check up on Luftwaffe chemical gas dispensers.

Franek pointed to a photographic example in 2nd TAF.

These dispensers do not look much larger than 250kg-500kg bombs, the mistery unit looks very different in design.

Also the joint between the ETC and arm looks very much like a movable joint - movable in flight?

Personally I am starting to be VERY sceptical that this thing has anything to do with smoke laying...

Hello!

As before on other forums too, this becomes a competition of beliefs.

Found couple of pictures of German naval smoke generators (search terms were "smoke generator" and "kriegsmarine"):

http://www.collectrussia.com/sBoot/smoke.jpg
http://www.collectrussia.com/sboot/smoke1_small.jpg

The pics are from site:
"Schnellboot Weapons and Tactics"
http://www.prinzeugen.com/Weapons.htm

It seems to be a simple pressure bottle thingie. Easily fitted into/under a Bf 109. I suppose wieght wouldn't be restriction too. The only thing I don't understand is the need for the "pole" underneath.

The pole is quite likely a wing strut adapted to this use (whatever it is). Beign streamlined it decreases drag considerably when hanging vertically under the plane. Tube from the smoke generator bottle would be easy to lead through the "pole".


About the other guesses:

The pole/tube is a bit too big and robust for the purpose of altitude sensing or message picking. That kind of hooks could be seen under late 20's-30's reconnaissance planes. The ones I've seen have all been simple rod things and (relatively) snug against fuselage bottom plus usually on centerline.

Mausi had a 150 kW generator run by diesel motor. Where would be the room in Bf 109? IMO there is no point of testing any radio euiqpment in single seater fighter. No operator/testing personnell, no room, not much electical power, limited carrying capability etc.


Upto now we only have one response which has answer from someone being there at the time - and it says smoke generator. It is also the only thing against I can't make any serious argument.


Cheers,
Kari

NOT a Bf 109T
 

Just a quick note regarding the identity of this aircraft. It is not a Bf 109T!

What fooled us before was the shape of the supercharger intake whic was also seen on virtuallu all Bf 109Ts from 1943 onwards. This now seems to be a modification also used on a few Bf 109Es which survived into late 1943 or 1944 and is therefore not proof that the aicraft is a Bf 109T.

Kjetil Aakra

Kjetil,

Sometimes people forget to look at the most obvious, in this case - the wings.

http://www.odkrywca-online.com/picsf..._rura_copy.jpg

These are clearly the extended wings of a Toni, no need to look any further.

still mad
 

Hi,
Shoot me down .....
But i still fancy the idea of this catapulted of the bow of a german armed raider...
maybe something like a V-1 ramp,
and the skids jettisoned after take off.
P.S. the wine has worn off...
Cheers
Jerry

Hi all,
what makes me wonder is, that the overall painting of the plane looks quite proper, whereas the colour below the elevator, just where this "rail" ends, is somehow distorted. I can imagine of two things how this can happen: heat or smoke/exhaust gas. First one could be a hint for a flamethrower, which was suggested by Ed. Second one: again smoke dispenser?
Also there seems to be visible a small "hump" at the end of the rail, and if I can believe my eyes, with a small hole in it (second photo).
What about dispensing smoke or something else not for protecting ships etc. but for weather trials?
Regards
Robert

Bf 109T or not
 

Actually, Ruy, I have looked at the wings! Should have posted this before, but I didn't have time before.

Here's a more detailed study.

Yes, judging by the photo you posted it would seem that this is a Bf 109T. However, several things don't fit.

First of all, one of the small differences between the Bf 109T and E was the placement of the aileron trim tabs. In the Toni there were in a mid-position, like this:

http://www.museumsnett.no/midttromsm...%20drawing.jpg

This is clearly seen on this photo:

http://www.museumsnett.no/midttromsm...b%20detail.jpg

Furthermore, the Bf 109T had spoilers, which were always deactived on operational machines. However, on at least some mahcines they were clearly visible:

http://www.museumsnett.no/midttromsm...shot_small.jpg

Furthermore, the Bf 109T had a circular hatch for the patin compass in the same location that the Bf 109F and subsequent versions did. No Bfr 109E airframe had this. See this drawing ((C) Arild Kjaeraas):

http://www.museumsnett.no/midttromsm...T2-1_small.jpg

Now, lets take a look at the Bf 109 in question.

http://www.museumsnett.no/midttromsm...xplanation.jpg

I believe that the trim tab is in the innermost position as on the Bf 109E, furthermore, there's no sign of the circular hatch. There's no sign of a spoiler either, on any of the photos of this machine. Therefore I do not think that this is a Bf 109T.

A few other clues point in this direction; the exhaust area is not black as on the Bf 109T (including the forward shroud). This was normally retained on the Bf 109T, even after the extensive refitting carried out on the type in 1942-43. There are many photos from late 1943/1944 that prove this.

Also, most Bf 109Ts had a white N on the cowling (signifying the engine type) after 1943.

So, all in all, I am not at all convinced that this is a Toni. In frontal views like the one posted by Ruy many Bf 109Es may appear to have extended wings. I have believed this on many occations myself, but always been disappointed (I'd love to find new Bf 109T photos!) when checking the features outlined above.

Lastly, from below, the Bf 109T should have three ventral aileron covers, like this (drawing (C) Kjetil Aakra);

http://www.museumsnett.no/midttromsm...inge_small.jpg

The Bf 109E only has two, but in many cases it may appear that it has three as it is difficult to see them. I cannot see three on the photo you posted, Ruy.

So by all means, I could be wrong, but identifying a Bf 109T requires more than a look at seemingly extended wings. Perspective considerations, photo distortions, angles, etc, can all be confusing.

Don't know what the device is, though!

Regards,

Kjetil

At work I wrote:
Well I always pride myself on a good eye and in the picture I used the wings are certainly extended, look at the position of the cannon compared to your own bottom drawing. These are not default Emil wings.

Well I think I'll have to eat those words now...

I've been making some rough measurements and a have done a lot of comparing and I now agree with Kjetil, this is not a Toni, but an Emil. The wings at that angle give the appearance of being of a broader span than they acually are, certainly compared to a true Toni.

It has taught me, yet again, that I should check before writing in such absolute terms. Guess the obvious wasn't so obvious afterall, I owe you one apology.

Back to Maurice :)

Bf 109T or not
 

Ruy, thanks for your input.

Glad we can agree on this, but there is absolutely no need to apologize!

Just for the record, I did the exact same thing, looked at the wings and was sure it was a Toni. Only a remark from a good friend got me thinking and checking so credit is due him (Mr. Arild Kjaeraas).

Kjetil

Re.: Strange 109 installation
 

Dear Gents,

some weeks ago, I ran across similar discussions about this 109 at My favourite discussion board named "Luftwaffe Bullet Board". Although picture is well-spreaded - obviously - nothing seems to be able to turn out in facts.

Just an idea (possibly a silly one) that flashes My mind is the fact, that this installation mounted at a 109 for My eyes is somewhat offside by means of a spray-device. Why mocking up a fighter with a strange device like this, if only a tube-like technic may fit it's supposed application?

So all in all My guestimate points to a trial installation af a torpedo mock-up. As well as others I do agree that this Messerschmitt wears a streched wing of the T-subtype.

Just an idea.


Kind regards

Norbert

Bf 109
 

Looking at the photo I would say that the device is unlikely to be a flame thrower or smoke layer as a much smaller tube could have been fixed to the fuselage underside to branch out either side of the tail, like the Ju88 flame thrower photo (which I think I saw in 'Modell magazin- War Album' 1-5).

I doubt it was a launch rail for a missile, as the underside is U shaped which does not correspond to the usual flat launch rails of the period, and the rail is not parallel with the line of flight and unusually is very close to the forward fuselage at the point the missile would leave the rail. The idea that it was a Hurricat type rail has already been discounted.

If it was a refueling arm (and ahead of its time) it would make no sense in it being connected to a tanker flying below the Bf 109 and working against gravity! And why would the LW use a Bf 109 as the tanker when larger aircraft were available?

If the device does not show a clear operational benefit to the Bf 109, the only explanation left, is that it was flight testing something for another aircraft design. It was quite common at the time for bits of a proposed aircraft to be attached to other for aerodynamic trials. Someone I hope will recognise the device as a strut of a large aircraft, a proposed 'Mistel' or even a leading edge of a wing / strut etc.