![]() |
Re: Photos 11-20-12 +
Hi Gents, Hello pals,
Thanks Ed. Come on? No one to react to this picture: http://www.ebay.de/itm/ws/eBayISAPI....m=390501015696 Ed is doing a nice job and you know I know it's time consuming ... So? No Comments on this usual/unusual Schacht Bf 109? - Early canopy. - Black triangle behind the cross as usual on Sch.G 1 planes. - and the rest ... Including an emblem which doesn't seem to be a remain of 5.(S)/LG 2 ... This picture deserves to have a lot of comments; who starts? Cheers, Franck. |
Re: Photos 11-20-12 +
You're welcome, Franck. I'm also curious about the letter F by the tail.
Ed |
Re: Photos 11-20-12 +
Hmm...the emblem looks like the crow of II./JG 51 and its Staffeln. So quite likely this is a former JG 51 aircraft (Bf 109 E-3?, 4. Staffel?) relegated to a ground-attack unit after phasing out of first-line service; with its old markings not yet removed. It could also be the other way round but this seems unlikely to me...In any case: an attractive scheme for modellers or profile artists!
Regards, Christian |
Re: Photos 11-20-12 +
Erla canopy???
|
Re: Photos 11-20-12 +
Quote:
During the Sch.G 1 ceremony pictured at Werl many E-7s displayed that hood. The "White F" coming from 4.(S)/LG 2; position well back on fuselage is not surprising. Black Triangle being painted behind the cross when the unit transformed on one of Sch.G 1. Number being overpainted on former triangle position. This is my theory ... Note the long style bomb rack under fuselage; and, last, it seems to me that the panzer emblem is under the canopy at its due place. I recognise those Schlacht Bf 109s are always problematic; at least for me. Concerning the emblem? Well, humm.. won't bet nothing. Regards, Franck. |
Re: Photos 11-20-12 +
I misread then :D
|
Re: Photos 11-20-12 +
Hi Guys,
That unit? With a bird, effectively :). Note that I didn't adopt the number "4" since it should mean there was an Erg.Gr. Note, too, that 4./Sch.G 1 seems to have been an "isolated" Staffel and this situation is probably the source of, I suppose without any clearly evidence, mismatch. The other solution could have been: 4.(Erg)/Sch.G 1. Very elegant indeed but no proof at all. Hence, I prefer the way depicted in Holmes' site; that is an Erg.Staffel without number. I think this choice is more open ... Regards, Franck. |
| All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:44. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net