Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

Hello everybody,

I've started building an Me 262 model, and I'd love to do it of this newly discovered machine! However, I'm wondering whether to put on bomb racks. According to Jean Yves Lorant in an article featured in the FalkEins blog, this is an Me 262 A-2a armed with two cannons. This variant was typically deployed as a fighter bomber.

But From the photo, is it possible to determine whether there are bomb racks? I'm also curious as to how we can know that this is an A-2a. Only one sticker containing armament loading instructions is seen under the cannon bay. A-2a machines often had only one sticker on either side of the canon bay, whereas fighters typically had two on either side, but this practice was not consistently implemented. Could the presence of only one armament loading sticker explain how he arrived at the conclusion that this is an A-2a? It looks like the upper cannon ports might have been faired over, but perhaps its impossible to tell from the photo. He, of course, is an expert and examined the photo up close so he must have seen lots of details.

So, what do you think. Should I put on those bomb racks? :)

Here's the article. http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/…/new-...o-me-262-b3al…

Best regards,

Jon

Re: Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

Hello,
Your link to falkeeins.blogspot.com is missing: ( Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.)


Well, you know your me 262 is a fake. The white lightning painted is add by a software. Normaly the shape have to follow the curve of the nose but this lightning is straight ahead.


Best regards.
Lumabe.

Re: Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

try here: http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/search/label/Me%20262

Re: Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

A question extensively debated in this thread, earlier in the year.

As for a KG(J) 54 having bomb racks — nothing's impossible but they operated in the fighter role and wouldn't have needed them.

Re: Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

Hm...a lot of people have expressed that it's fake. Are you sure that the shape of the lightning bolt doesn't follow the curve of the nose? I actually find it hard to tell from the photo. Also, while I respect your opinion and would like to be open-minded about this, I'm just curious whether you read the arguments of Jean Yves Lorant in favor of the photo's authenticity. He is an expert in aircraft photography from that period and he has examined the original photo carefully. I take your point, but what do you think about the arguments for the photo's authenticity in the article?

I realize this topic was discussed in an earlier thread, but I'd just like to point out that the article on the FalkEins blog was published after most of the posts on that thread, so at the time most people who posted on the thread couldn't have known about Jean Yves Lorant's examination of the photo.

Thoughts?

Best regards,
Jon

Re: Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

http://luftwaffeinprofile.se/Me%20262%20KG%2054.html
Claes Sundin's new illustration of this plane.

Re: Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

Wow, Micke...Thanks! You've totally made my day. :) Interestingly, it appears Claes Sundin interprets the finish as RLM 75/74 overpainted with a rather squiggly green mottle. From David Brown, I've read that variations of this attractive scheme were commonly used on many early production Me 262 A-2a's, especially in Kg 51.

The Wn.r that Claes has chosen in the profile marks this as an early production machine. That this should be an early production Sturmvogel makes sense for several reasons. For one, the presence of the early-style clear navigation light cover on the bottom trailing edge of the rudder is consistent with an early production machine. Secondly, it's noteworthy that the Me 262 whose camo is most similar to our subject is a B-1a variant coded "B3+SH" with WNr. 170075--a very similar Wn.r to that of our subject! Both this and our subject served with KG(j) 54 (though in different staffels) and feature the dashing white lightning bolt. The B-1a with Wn.r 170075 was likewise an early production machine, and so I assume it was probably painted in greys (or perhaps a transitional mix?)

I have several questions at this point. 1) Can the Wn.r be clearly seen in the original photo under careful examination? 2) Is the front engine cowling yellow or unpainted? I had assumed that it was unpainted, mostly just because yellow seems too cool for school, and intake cowlings painted in staffel colors are an extremely rare sight on Me 262s. :)

Re: Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

Hello Jon!
1. I don't know if Claes have seen the original photo and the W.Nr.
2. The color of the engine cowls seems to be pretty close to both the yellow A and the nose tip, IF the tip is yellow and white.
Interesting also that Cleas profile have the wings or just the engines in 81/82/76 and the fuselage in 74/75/76 with 83 over that.

Re: Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

Is there proof the WN is 170099?

Re: Me 262 B3+AL Question
 

Excellent question. I'm assuming Claes would have consulted with someone. Perhaps he got in touch with Jean Yves Lorant? I'll send Claes an email and ask him. I've just had a look at his website.

In the article, Jean Yves Lorant mentions that parts of the WN can be seen, though it isn't completely legible. I'd love to know how much of it is actually visible. We all would!