Very intereseting Bf109G-10 at e-bay

[Marc-André Haldimann]

Anders,

Thanks for correcting me regarding the lower cowlong chin bulges, I misread Ferdinando's very precise description.

Ferdinando,

I always appreciate your analysises, the more do because you bring with them this do necessary relativity between theory and unit-level practice

Cheers
Marc

[Cpt_Farrel]

Thanks for your opinion there Ferdinando, seems as if we agree on the replaced undercowling. (I wasn't sure it would fit, but again, why not?)

As for the Erla-built G-14/AS. I thought that they did have the higher fillercap for the oiltank? The pictures of Eberhard Gzik's "Red 2" doesn't show the cap itself but the placement of the stencil seem to indicate the higher placement. EDIT - The picture I have at hand doesn't show the cap in enough detail, I know there's a better pic showing the nose in more detail so maybe someone else can tell?

Also, how many photos of Erlabuilt G-14/AS are there? Apart from Gzik's "Red 2" there's Black 13 flown by Oblt Scheufele of JG4.

Then there's a picture in Priens book on the Bf109 on page 159 that is said to show "White-21" Wrk.Nr 130282. Looking at the camoflage though, I'm quite convinced that it's wrong. The aircraft in that picture is almost certainly built by Erla judging from the paintscheme. As the enginecowling isn't seen it's not possible to say wether it even is a G-14/AS or a regular G-14.

[veltro]

Originally Posted by Cpt_Farrel

As for the Erla-built G-14/AS. I thought that they did have the higher fillercap for the oiltank? The pictures of Eberhard Gzik's "Red 2" doesn't show the cap itself but the placement of the stencil seem to indicate the higher placement. EDIT - The picture I have at hand doesn't show the cap in enough detail, I know there's a better pic showing the nose in more detail so maybe someone else can tell?

I hope you can forgive me, but you are right and I was wrong speaking of the oil filler cap (maybe holidays relaxes too much...). As a matter of fact, the higher oil filler cap was almost a trademark of the Erla production since the G-14 (I once posted about the lack of info on the Erla G-14 production and the peculiar choice of the bigger 60l annular oil tank mated with the DB 605A, but nothing emerged...) and it was there also on the G-14/AS built at Leipzig.

A proof of that is the nose of "Rita", which is documented with three photographs in the fantastic double volume of J-Y Lorant and Richard Goyat on JG 300. Here is Gzik under the nose of his aircraft which clearly shows the high oil filler cap...



Hope this helps

[John Beaman]

My old friend Ferdinando is correct about the Erla G-14/AS. Its lower cowl was modified in a similar manner as its G-10 to accomodate the oil recovery lines and larger heads of the 605/AS. Since the heads were not as deep as the 605D the change may not have been as severe. As to why Mtt chose to use the cowling "bumps" on its 14/AS, it was probably, as mentioned, simple commonality with the soon to come 605D installation in the G-10. After all, the "normal" lower cowl from the G-1 on was basically the same so it was easier for Mtt to add those bumps instead of a whole new lower cowl, ala Erla. After all, Mtt built a lot more 14/AS machines than did Erla.

[veltro]

Originally Posted by John Beaman

My old friend Ferdinando is correct about the Erla G-14/AS. Its lower cowl was modified in a similar manner as its G-10 to accomodate the oil recovery lines and larger heads of the 605/AS. Since the heads were not as deep as the 605D the change may not have been as severe. As to why Mtt chose to use the cowling "bumps" on its 14/AS, it was probably, as mentioned, simple commonality with the soon to come 605D installation in the G-10. After all, the "normal" lower cowl from the G-1 on was basically the same so it was easier for Mtt to add those bumps instead of a whole new lower cowl, ala Erla. After all, Mtt built a lot more 14/AS machines than did Erla.

John, may I disagree for the first time with you? the DB605 AS engine didn't need any modification of the lower cowl. As a matter of fact, the "chin-bulged" cowl applied by MTT to its G-14/AS was simply a choice caused by the large availability of such lower cowls dictated by the contemporary production of K-4s on the same production lines.

There are a lot of photographs available showing that those "bulges" were of no use on the MTT aircraft... here are a couple:





The difference from a plane (G-10 from WNF or K-4 from MTT) who needed such bulges - caused by the tubings of the DB605D - is shown below, by the presence of the "slit" cut into the nose lower panel to give space to a tube which - in turn - needed to be covered by the bulge... (Erla designers decided instead to redesign the nose of their G-10s and K-4s, widening the section of the lower nose and thus incorporating the tubings with no bulges needed)





Thus, that is why both the "chin-bulges" on the MTT G-14/AS were useless, and the lower cowls of the Erla-buit G-14/AS were just normal ones, at least IMHO...

That is also why I do not believe to the presence on Erla G-14/AS of the enlarged lower cowl and of the "rectangular" panel on port side and, as proven by "Rita", such peculiarity was applied IMHO only since the innovative G-10 redesigned by Leipzig engineers onwards.

Summing up, the G-14/AS of Erla production were quite "normal" (if this word has a meaning speaking of the Bf 109 - as you know all too well, my friend...) apart from the higher oil nose filler hatch, whereas the anomaly on the MTT ones was the lower "chin-bulged" cowl applied only due to its availability and not by its need.

Sorry for being long in my post, but such things need clear explainations and examples, IMHO, which I hope to have supplied.