A strange Bf 109E...

[Aziraphale]

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...

[Ruy Horta]

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...

[Kari Lumppio]

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

[Kjetil Aakra]

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

[Ruy Horta]

Kjetil,

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



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

[brewerjerry]

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

[robert_schulte]

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

[Kjetil Aakra]

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:



This is clearly seen on this photo:



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



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):



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



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);



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

[Ruy Horta]

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

[Kjetil Aakra]

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