Late Hundert Neun ID

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

kettbo said:
Interesting info from the German pilots Ratsel. Curious if these combats were low, medium, or high altitude.
Click to expand...

The one story Herr Nau told me was from 400m to 1000m most of the time. Herr Petzschler was from 8km IIRC (his G-6/AS high altitude intercepter). The fastest level flights for the 109 will be with a slight nose down attitude.
 
The antenna/mast is that below the left wing on the later planes, Moranne Mast The near vertical mounting is kinda strange.
What equipment was this for?
Would a G-6 ever have this? Would this be part of the G-14 upgrade/new build?
I see the antenna on the G-10, K-4, a plane identified as Gi14 in one pic
 
Last edited:
The underwing Morane antenna is the transmission antenna for the send/receive part of the Fug 16 ZY radio system. The wire antenna,from fuselage/mast to fin is the receiving antenna. The loop antenna is also associated with this system and is a homing or direction finding antenna. It was fixed,some modellers seem to think that it rotated!
The exact dimensions of the Morane antenna can be had from the allied report on a G-14,W.Nr. 413601.

"Radio: FuG 16 ZY fitted. "Y" aerial mounted on underside of the port wing, 7 ft. 2 in. from wing root and 9 in. back from the leading edge. The aerial itself, which consists of a tapering streamlined light alloy tube 24 1/2 in. long with a semi-flexible stranded wire tip 12 1/2 in. long projects through a "Plexiglass" disc set in the wing surface."

Cheers
Steve
 
The FuG 16 ZY was also fitted to some earlier Bf 109, those were designated G-4y or G-6y. They were used to direct their own air units to the enemy groups as they could be tracked/identified with ground-based radar.
 
Leads me to ask this question then....
If the FuG 16 upgrade is probably the most important thing than makes a G-14 a G-14 as not all got the MW-50 (though on paper this was supposed to happen), shouldn't any G-6 so fitted then be ID'd as a G-14? Or is this a 'on a certain month, if you had the equipment, bam, you now have a G-14' type deal?
Basically, if it looks like a G-6, has the mg 131 boils, probably has mw 50, has the Morane Mast, then it is a G-14?
Perhaps I missed something earlier on the radio install...
Seems all the G-10 and K-4 had the Morane mast

Acknowledged on the G-4y and G-6y earlier.

Factory MW 50, gauge in the instrument panel
Field converted to MW 50, bolt on gauge

I am learning that on the late 109s, far to many exceptions to any rule.
 
The early G-14s,which were not produced in homogenous blocks but rather inserted into G-6 production blocks were identical to the late G-6s. It is really a matter of nomenclature. The G-14 was simply a failed attempt to standardise the evolution of the G-6 into a new dash number. I could write a list of which changes a G-14 was supposed to incorporate but not all of them did.
The RLM only really got a standard fighter wih the K-4 but this is probably because,with the exception of a handful produced by Erla,they all came from one plant!
When did a G-6 become a G-14? When someone wrote G-14 on the production schedule.
Cheers
Steve
 
this late 109 id is more difficult than finding an honest politician

So probably easiest to build tall tail Gustav with boils and front canopy framing, leave the outfitting for the end user (my 1/144 project)h
 
Last edited:
Most Ost front G-6's/14's/10's took out the FuG 16 ZY and its related components. As it wasn't very reliable in the east. It also saved weight.
 
"Most Ost front G-6's/14's/10's took out the FuG 16 ZY and its related components."
What did they replace it with?

"As it wasn't very reliable in the east."
Why so?

"It also saved weight."
So whatever they replaced it with was much lighter?

I have to ask as it isn't something I've considered before!

I can see why the DF (Z) component might not be so useful in the East,despite being able to home in on a signal at a range of 100 miles at 10,000 feet, but they surely still needed VHF wireless communications. An allied report claimed.

"The radius of the transmitter when communicating with the FuG16 receiver is from 45 miles at 100 feet to 180 miles at 25000 feet for R/T."

Cheers
Steve
 
The way I heard it they didn't build ground station antennas for them too far east, mostly in western/southern reich. Ostfront and Süd Ost didn't need those radios (likewise they'd be useless in the Med). As far as I know many Hungarian G-14s were just a straight late type G-6, their build quality was higher than Mtt G-14s but most had straight Nov43 DB601A-1 engines on B4 and ETC racks standardised, most often with an SC250 or 2/4 SC50 (G-10 were more likely to carry an SC500 but have better rough field performance under loads).
Luftwaffe doctrine had formally become army support by this stage. Fighter groups could be tied to field units the same way the stuka used to be in 1940. Most fighters built from 1944 were intended at the factory to be nothing more than bomb trucks, in some cases you can run your fingers under panel gaps as far as finishing quality goes. Carry bombs, drop the bombs, run away, that was the maxim for most Me-109 production around then. If Hitler could've he'd have made every fighter in the luftwaffe carry a bomb, no exceptions.


All these circumstantial elements, they're contributors to the very confusing nature of late 109s.
 
vanir said:
The way I heard it they didn't build ground station antennas for them too far east, mostly in western/southern reich. Ostfront and Süd Ost didn't need those radios (likewise they'd be useless in the Med).
Click to expand...

Yes,and I can see why the DF (homing) component of the system would be redundant in the East without the infrastructure to support it. The FuG 16 ZY was a sort of all in one system and some component parts could be omitted,as was the case on the Ju88G-1 which the Luftwaffe delivered to RAF Woodbridge by mistake. The DF loop antenna was present but not connected to anything.
I don't see how a unit of any type could operate without radio communications. Is anyone seriously suggesting that these aircraft operated without radios? That I find hard to believe. If they were changed for something else what was it and where on earth did the units get them from?
I'm hoping Ratsel will clarify as I really don't have time at the moment to start investigating this.
Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
No no, I didn't mean they operated without radios. Simply when I read a Luftwaffe pilot story about having his G-6 upgraded "to G-14 standard" he talked about a radio change, it was for a navigation system. Aircraft in Hungary didn't need it. I'm trying to fill in the blanks myself, never really looked up much about the radios and nav.
I just remember things pilots said, like Porkryshin mentioning the P-39 had three radio sets. Russian radios were far simpler, if even fitted. In 1941 the bulk of Frontal Aviation still preferred hand signals, even when radios were fitted they weren't used often until it became orders from about Oct42.

Just stuff I read, don't really know that much about it.
 
I think we're in the same boat Vanir! It has never ocurred to me that a frontline unit would or could alter the radio installation on the aircraft they received. They left the factory with the FuG 16 as standard and presumably that's how they were accepted by the Luftwaffe (BAL), so I'm interested to understand where,by whom and for what the FuG 16s were changed. I can't believe they operated without radio communications.
Ratsel wrote:
"Most Ost front G-6's/14's/10's took out the FuG 16 ZY and its related components."
Which has piqued my interest.
Cheers
Steve
 
I can't find anything definitive. I can only say how I understand the system. Maybe someone will know more...not difficult!
The 'Z' system,'Zieflug' or directional flight was a system of homing which allowed the fighter to fly towards a beacon. If the beacons were absent in the East then this element of the system would be redundant,
The 'Y' system,'Y-jagd verfahren' is difficult to translate but let's say Y-fighter system. It is a transponder system which enables a ground station to determine the distance and bearing of the fighter. This was more important for nightfighter operations and again,without the ground based infrastructure,may have been redundant in the East.
The problem is that the FuG 16 was also the radio telecommunications system for the pilot and,with add ons,was an all in one box. Remove that and you have a radioless fighter. Now you can remove the Z and Y elements but not I think the entire system. As I said above the pilots needed radios.
Here's the radio installation.



Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
Just an update. In the last several months I bought
Prien/Rodeike Messerschmitt Bf 109 F,G &K
Radinger/Otto Bf 109 F-K
Aero Detail 5 Messerschmitt Bf109G in Japanese and English, really nice!
I have been through the books many times along with
Weal's OSPREY booklet Bf 109F/G/K Aces of the Western Front and
Bowman's P-47 Thunderbolt vs Bf 109G/K
and Squadron Messerschmitt Bf 109 in action Part 2

these are my conclusions based on what I have read and some info from this site. Please feel free to provide critical commentary!

Bf 109G-14:

summer of 1944 new build though merely a Bf 109G6/U2 standardized as G-14 with the MW50, FuG16zy and DF loop of later G-6 planes
o stands to reason that earlier G-6 planes rebuilt would be outfitted to this G-14 standard
o either canopy, short standard tail or tall tail in several configurations
o more of the G-14/AS then G-6/AS as a percentage of the production, refined cowl for those with /AS or /ASM equipment
o more /U4 with 30mm nose cannon fitted though 20% of production seems to be my somewhat educated conclusion
o boosted low altitude speed of ca 350mph and high altitude speed ca 400mph, better top speed at altitude for /AS aircraft 420mph territory(?)

Bf109G-10

o most would have tall tail, Erla canopy and large rectangular bulges on the wing tops and lower nose lumps
o few have earlier canopy, some had short tail, some had the smaller wing bulges for tire clearance, tall or short tail wheel
o several refined cowl patterns, several rudder configs
o some fitted with the DB 605 AS when the DB 605 D was not available, Prien calls this Bf109G-10/AS (though I believe this is in dispute)
o not clear on construction status:
rebuilt planes to the current standard to emulate the K-4 per Prien. I believe a modest amount of new-build (believe I saw this here on the forum)
o standard fit was the nose 30mm mk 108 though many had the 20mm fitted
o speeds of ca 350 at low altitude and approximately 425mph at altitude clean configuration
 
Last edited:
G-14.
Early ones fitted with DB 605 A engines which makes them identical to earlier G-6s. It's just a matter of nomenclature.
Erla built G-14s all had the tall tail. WNF built ones had the short tail. Early Messerschmitt built ones also had the short tail though some had the longer tail wheel. Later ones would normally have the tall tail.
Do we want to get into which ones had the larger oil tank and/or larger supercharger intake (like the G-10)? Can 'o' worms!
Something to look out for is the protruding battery cover on the rear cockpit wall which is a dead giveaway that the aircraft is MW 50 equipped. This applies to the G-10 as well.
Some G-14/AS were retrofitted with the DB 605 D engine. Does this now make them a G-10 ?
All G-14/AS had tall tails but early ones did nothave the "chin bulges" over the larger cam shaft covers. Some may have had the larger main wheels and wing bulges.

G-10
DB 605 D engine and MW 50 except for a small block (about 50) with the DB 605 ASM. Tall tail. Larger oil cooler and larger oil tank. Cold start access hatch therefore in higher position,matching position of crank hole.

There's loads more which is why people write books about them !

Steve
 
Last edited:
A list of Bf 109 Neubau compiled by William Medcalf

Subtype Factory 1944 1945 Totals
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
G 5 Erla 50 63 56 6 2 * * * 60 * * * * * * = 237
G 5/R2 Erla Scheduled-not built = 0
G 6 MttR 430 309 135 343 550 659 662 260 242 50 53 109 1 9 * = 3812
G 6 Erla 291 270 203 200 319 300 305 * * 106 295 * 64 * * = 2353
G 6 WNF Scheduled-not built = 0
G 6/R2 WNF * * * * * * * * * * 130 * 2 * = 132
G 6/U2 Erla * * * * * * * 38 3 1 1 * * * = 43
G 6/U4 WNF 119 51 303 404 118 144 240 33 40 14 * * * * = 1466
G 6/U4 Györ * * * * * * 16 15 * * * * * * = 31
G 6AS MttR * * * * * * * 1 * * * * * * = 1
Ga 6 Györ 42 6 50 14 17 17 30 * * * * * * * * = 176
G 8 WNF * 16 57 39 * * * * * * * * * * * = 112
G 8/R5 WNF * * * * 59 110 111 208 92 77 21 67 * 63 107 = 915
G 8/R5 GYör * * * * * * * 29 2 * * * * * = 31
G 8/U3 WNF * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * = 1
G 10 Erla * * * * * * * 1 52 279 67 103 38 4 = 544
G 10 MttR * * * * * * * * 4 108 62 3 = 177
G 10/R6 Erla * * * * * * * * * * 49 191 269 178 284 = 971
G 10/U4 WNF * * * * * * * * * * * * 129 132 95 = 356
G 14 MttR * * * * * * 440 144 30 59 11 1 157 47 = 889
G 14 Erla * * * * * * 232 472 339 25 * 78 * * = 1146
G 14/U4 WNF * * * * * * * 59 148 219 98 56 11 2 = 593
G 14/U4 GYör * * * * * * * * 32 * * * * * = 32
G 14/U4 KöB * * * * * * * * * 9 20 * * * = 29
G 14AS Mttr * * * * * * * * 303 379 101 203 211 62 11 = 1270
G 14AS Erla * * * * * * * * 95 9 3 * * * * = 107
K 2 Erla Scheduled-not built 0
K 2 WNF Scheduled-not built 0
K 3 Erla Scheduled-not built 0
K 3/R2 Erla Scheduled-not built 0
K 4 MttR * * * * * * * 15 293 221 325 338 233 168 = 1593
Totals 932 715 804 1006 1065 1230 1043 1374 1718 1793 1558 1147 1221 876 716 = 17017
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

N
German aircraft ID?
Replies
3
Views
724
DerAdlerIstGelandet
N
German biplane ID
Replies
1
Views
877
Wurger
J
RAF ID of loss in Belgium
Replies
13
Views
944
Wurger
S
Can anyone help me ID this pilot and his plane?
Replies
6
Views
834
pb43
P
Halifax ID (possible 614 (PFF) Squadron, Italy.
Replies
3
Views
997
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register