Bf109G-6 or G14- Hartman's winter camo in Hungary 1945

[jonwinn]

I have the Hasegawa 1/48 kit and Eagle Cal decals. The decals have a picture of this plane with the battery box protruding through the bulkhead behind the pilot's seat. Did both the G-14 and G-6 have this option? I don't think I ever saw a G-6 with this. Thanks. Jon

[CRAZY IVAN5]

From what I've been able to determine ,understanding -109 production was a real mess. the late G-6s SOMETIMES had the battery box behind the pilot's head . The G-14s all did.[again, from the sources that I have]. G-14s were the effort to standardize -109G production but it didn't turn out that way ,it was still a mess. Probably the best thing to do is base the build on Wr. Nr and that can be a real PITA. Others who know more will be checking in presently I'm sure.  

[CRAZY IVAN5]

Add to the above , the main reason the battery was relocated, from my sources , was the addition of the MW50 system. In all probability there weren't very many G-6s with this system. Now the possibility of  Hartmann's aircraft being equipped with an MW 50 system exists[ can't rule it out], as he was kinda of a "rockstar" in a sense.

[seawinder]

What about in the K-4? Hasegawa's kit has the protruding box; Eduard has a flat hinged hatch (which I scratchbuilt for the Hasegawa I did this past year).

Thanks!

[CRAZY IVAN5]

1 hour ago, seawinder said:

What about in the K-4? Hasegawa's kit has the protruding box; Eduard has a flat hinged hatch (which I scratchbuilt for the Hasegawa I did this past year).

Thanks!

Well, I believe[could be wrong] the K-4 also had MW50 system so the battery box would be protruding . Make of that what you will.

[seawinder]

1 hour ago, CRAZY IVAN5 said:

Well, I believe[could be wrong] the K-4 also had MW50 system so the battery box would be protruding . Make of that what you will.

Thanks. Too late now in any case.

[CRAZY IVAN5]

2 hours ago, seawinder said:

Thanks. Too late now in any case.

Oh well, in the next life. It's the way it goes sometimes, .been there ,done that and didn't even get the T shirt.

[seawinder]

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I do wonder why Eduard has the flat hatch in their recent, supposedly well researched K-4 kit.

[jonwinn]

I have built 3 or 4 Bf109K-4s and never had a battery box protruding like the G-10 had. I always removed them and don't remember why. Here is a few pictures of a 1/32 Hasegawa K-4 done over at LSP with no battery box. No clue but it looks "right" to me. The builders screen name of this beauty at LSP is Thunnus.

 

 

Edited July 20 by jonwinn

[CRAZY IVAN5]

1 hour ago, jonwinn said:

I have built 3 or 4 Bf109K-4s and never had a battery box protruding like the G-10 had. I always removed them and don't remember why. Here is a few pictures of a 1/32 Hasegawa K-4 done over at LSP with no battery box. No clue but it looks "right" to me. The builders screen name of this beauty at LSP is Thunnus.

 

 

I stand corrected was under the false impression that the K-4 had the MW50 system . Turns out that it used the GM-1  instead  of MW50 sooooooooo the battery wasn't relocated . Which means that the battery cover does NOT protrude behind the pilot's head. WHOOOPS! The problem with K model is that there's not a lot of info ,indeed AFAIK there are none in existence.

[jonwinn]

I saw a lot of pictures , WWII era with NO battery box, BUT a lot were wrecks too. A lot missing that "hatch" that woulda,coulda or shoulda had the box protruding through.That whole 109 designation from G-6 to G-14 to G-10 to K-4 is a can of worms AND some had multiple ID plates! I go by the number like yellow 3 or blue 4 and pretty much give up on sub types. Just my 2 cents.

[seawinder]

Whew, looks as if I dodged a bullet! Thanks for the info.

[CRAZY IVAN5]

13 hours ago, seawinder said:

Whew, looks as if I dodged a bullet! Thanks for the info.

No worries . I've been really digging into this K-4 and it turns out that it indeed had the MW50 system AND GM-1. On the K-4 the battery was relocated to the bottom of the radio rack so ,yeah, not in the baggage compartment where it was moved to for the G-14[ which is the original subject of this thread]. The K-4 info will be useful when Kotare puts out their K-4 in 32nd scale. Ya learn something new all the time[ I've been chasing -109 production around the block for nearly 10 years and still.....................

[Cool Hand]

On the subject of Harmann's winter schemed G-14, based on this photo, it definitely looks like the protruding battery box is there. 

[jonwinn]

Yup, it's there!

 

[Robertson]

On 7/21/2024 at 9:08 AM, CRAZY IVAN5 said:

No worries . I've been really digging into this K-4 and it turns out that it indeed had the MW50 system AND GM-1. On the K-4 the battery was relocated to the bottom of the radio rack so ,yeah, not in the baggage compartment where it was moved to for the G-14[ which is the original subject of this thread]. The K-4 info will be useful when Kotare puts out their K-4 in 32nd scale. Ya learn something new all the time[ I've been chasing -109 production around the block for nearly 10 years and still.....................

 

  As far as I know the Me-109K never used GM-1 (it was only proposed). The G-5 (and G-6/R2) did, and got 700 km/h at very high altitudes.

 

  GM-1 required a thermal fuel truck tank, and a thermos like reservoir tank similar in volume to MW-50, but probably heavier. It was a rare thing on 109s

 

  GM-1 was only useful for very high altitude speed, and on the 109 was mostly used for high altitude reconnaissance with camera equipped Me-109G-5s or G-6/R2s. MW-50 boosted low altitude speed up to 20-25 000 ft. and was much more common. By late 1944 specialised high altitude flights were rare, so MW-50 was simpler and far more common.

 

  An interesting feature of MW-50 on the G-6 (not sure on the G-14) is that some equipment for the MW-50 is supposed to have prevented the use of underwing 20 mm gondolas. This seems confirmed on all photos of red leg Me-109s (but the red leg distinction was not systematic). 

 

  GM-1 was probably common on recon used aircrafts and fast twins, like the later Ju-88s and 188s. It was tried on the early fw-190A-4s but was less common later. I think some rare types like the Ta-152H (or some twins) could have either GM-1 or MW-50, but I'm not sure if they actually combined them, although some sources suggest they did. GM-1 was definitely much rarer, more cumbersome and more specialised than MW-50. The GM-1 nitrous oxide liquid could only be put in shortly before the flight, since it gradually warmed and lost potency.

Edited July 25 by Robertson

[CRAZY IVAN5]

16 hours ago, Robertson said:

 

  As far as I know the Me-109K never used GM-1 (it was only proposed). The G-5 (and G-6/R2) did, and got 700 km/h at very high altitudes.

 

  GM-1 required a thermal fuel truck tank, and a thermos like reservoir tank similar in volume to MW-50, but probably heavier. It was a rare thing on 109s

 

  GM-1 was only useful for very high altitude speed, and on the 109 was mostly used for high altitude reconnaissance with camera equipped Me-109G-5s or G-6/R2s. MW-50 boosted low altitude speed up to 20-25 000 ft. and was much more common. By late 1944 specialised high altitude flights were rare, so MW-50 was simpler and far more common.

 

  An interesting feature of MW-50 on the G-6 (not sure on the G-14) is that some equipment for the MW-50 is supposed to have prevented the use of underwing 20 mm gondolas. This seems confirmed on all photos of red leg Me-109s (but the red leg distinction was not systematic). 

 

  GM-1 was probably common on recon used aircrafts and fast twins, like the later Ju-88s and 188s. It was tried on the early fw-190A-4s but was less common later. I think some rare types like the Ta-152H (or some twins) could have either GM-1 or MW-50, but I'm not sure if they actually combined them, although some sources suggest they did. GM-1 was definitely much rarer, more cumbersome and more specialised than MW-50. The GM-1 nitrous oxide liquid could only be put in shortly before the flight, since it gradually warmed and lost potency.

I concur, the only K that was mentioned in regards of GM-1 was the K-0 and I can't even confirm that I assumed that all the Ks had it [ I oughta know better when it comes to -109s]. NOS is touchy stuff as a couple of my friends have found out[ one lost his entire car in an explosion, he's ok]. While it does give a hell of a boost in performance, I feel it's more trouble than it's worth.  The "boil off rate" is note worthy ,depending of how warm it is outside, they could lose an entire tank in less than a day. I have to wonder what the deal was with running the under wing Gondolas, how that interfered. I was under the impression that there weren't very many G-6s that ran MW50, but then again we're talking -109s . The G-14s had it but I've not seen anything about the -14s having under wing gondolas so it may not be a "thing". Please note my references for the Ks is very limited[ fishing in shallow waters].