Tell me what this is...

[ndicki]

Tell me what precise sub-type this is, and I'll upload it!

 

[wsmwsm]

Perhaps a K?

 

[stumpjumper1]

109 "F" F3 SUB VARIANT ONLY BECUASE I SEE LACK OF CANNON OR MG ON THE WINGS LEAST THATS MY GUESS LOL

 

[20MikeMike]

Looking at the cockpit i think K

 

[ndicki]

It isn't a K, because the K series all had "clean" fairings over the cannon feeds, rather than these circular covers.

And it isn't an F, because the F series had the same canopy as the E-4/7, with the extra quarterlight pane at the lower front. Also, Fs didn't have the little air intakes on the sides of the nose, the tall tailfin, the tall tailwheel or the "Erla" canopy.

The absence of gun gondolas doesn't mean a thing; they could be fitted to most later types, and were a bolt-on feature that could be easily removed.

There's only one sub-type (well, two if you're really awake!) that it can be...

 

[MajorMagee]

It's a very short pilot flying on instruments.

 

[ndicki]

That's true enough! I think he's forgotten his parachute!

He must be a sub-type...

Unfortunately, MS got that bit wrong - the 109 is so small that a man of normal height finds it a bit of a squeeze. When the RAF got their hands on an E-4, the test pilot had to fly it with the canopy removed!

 

[lewis11777]

Sooooo you are saying this is a 109E-4 variant?

 

[ndicki]

Sooooo you are saying this is a 109E-4 variant?

No.

 

[MajorMagee]

G-6AS or G-14AS

 

[gizbob]

Could it be a Me bf 109 g10.

 

[20MikeMike]

Bf109 g 10 hood > tail > tail wheel
But i do know one thing it looks great

 

[ndicki]

G-6AS or G-14AS

No - they also had the clear fairings over the cannon breeches.

 

[ndicki]

Bf109 g 10 hood > tail > tail wheel
But i do know one thing it looks great

No - The G-10 was pretty well indistinguishable from the G-6AS or K series, unless you know exactly what to look for. This isn't that obscure!

The tall tail and Erla canopy could be fitted to a range of types, and even retrofitted to ones which didn't originally leave the factory that way. Interestingly, the lack of standardisation among late Bf109s was a major problem. Knowing the reputation the Germans have for being organised and so on, it's a bit of a surprise!

This is a recognised sub-type, but is most probably a rebuild of an earlier type. What type it was before rebuilding is irrelevant.

 

[westview]

so it's not a G-14?

 

[greycap.raf]

This is a recognised sub-type, but is most probably a rebuild of an earlier type. What type it was before rebuilding is irrelevant.

That would make it a G-10 - which it isn't. G-6s and G-14s were built as such, even on the same production lines mixed with each other - example X would be a G-6, the one following it a G-14, then another G-6, then a couple of G-14s etc.

The sub-types possibly converted from earlier versions would be G-8 (G-6 with camera equipment, also built from the beginning as such), G-12 (G-1/2/3/4/5/6 converted to dual control) and G-10 (G-6 or G-14 re-engined, also built as such) but I have a feeling that you're getting your versions mixed up now as not a single G-10 had the rounded machine gun bulges or the small landing gear bumps.

 

[Steven190]

I say a Me109G-14

 

[ndicki]

Rene's caught me out getting slightly mixed up, but two people have got it - it's a G-14. Or a very late production G-6, which effectively means much the same thing.

The G-10 was the rebuild one, true...

Uploaded. Wait for it to be vetted, and it'll be there.

 

[greycap.raf]

Now if only there was a way to portray the spinner in such a way that it could take a spiral, a differently painted section, something...

 

[lewis11777]

Some of the 109F models do that, or at least these have a split paint job that make the prop cover kind of appear as a spiral when the prop is spinning.