Hi all - I’m building a Bf109 G-6 with the Erla-Haube canopy. One of my decal sheets mentions that the antenna mast is mounted to the canopy. Does this mean that the mast moved with the canopy when opened? Was the antenna wire “stretchable” in a way that would allow this?
I have dozens of cockpit pics but none that show the E-H canopy open, or that also show the mast.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
stinger
I’m not much of an expert on 109’s, but I did a little looking in my “library” and found profiles that show the anntenna location on the canopy, but the photo I found says otherwise, that it was mounted to the fuselage, just aft of the canopy. Here’s the photo I found, though of course it does not prove that the particular 109 you are modelling is the same. In other words, I supply no warranty!
I’m no expert either, but according to one of my references, the Aero Detail #5 Bf109G, late G-6’s equipped with the Erla-haube canopy could have had the mast mounted in either location (canopy or fuselage spine) or not at all. Those that use the canopy attachment appear to have what looks like a tension spring incorporated into the aerial wire just above where the DF loop is located on the fuselage.
Thanks for the replies guys. The info does help. I guess this is just one more little thing that makes building an accurate 109 such a pain, the G-6 in particular.
Since I’m trying to make this an “openable” canopy, I think I’ll stay away from mounting the mast on the canopy. I really don’t think anyone will care.
Thanks again,
stinger
Now that you mention it, I also remember seeing a tension spring incorporated into the aerial wire; I’ve also seen it on the tail end of the wire, instead of in the middle like you say.
Every G-6 I’ve have seen has the long mast canopy mounted radio antenna. In some pics it looks as if it maybe mounted to the fuselage but I have never seen it (that would be highly unusual set up unless you were looking an early G-14/AS with M50 power boost system ). The type of canopy should make no difference. On the Erla or “galland” hood just moves to the side when the canopy is open and proper tension is held by a spring near the tail mount. Some G-14’s and G-10’s may have a short mast canopy mounted antenna depending on type of build, assembly point and equiptment on board. If for what ever reason it would be mounted to the fuselage spine (again I have never seen this set up on a G-6) there would be no mast at all. It would look like the K-4 type with the antenna wire going right into the fuselage spine just behind the canopy rear seal. And yes some very early K-4’s did have a small mast canopy mounted antenna, but these are few and far between. Unless this G-6 you are building is a reconsistitued airframe or some sort of special equipted model 99% of G-6’s would have the long mast canopy mounted antenna, even late war service G-6. Now this is not to say this thing wasn’t wrecked and is suffering from a substandered field repair or something eles. late in the war luftwaffe quality control was low to say the least.
Nice model Phoenix! As a matter of fact, that is the very version I am building…‘White One’ of Eric Hartmann. What scale is that, and does your canopy open and close? That pic shows exactly what I was looking for. My Eaglecals ‘Blonde Knight’ info says it was a G-6, Erla Haube canopy (as yours has), with a short mast attached to the canopy. It looks like yours matches that description exactly.
Thanks,
stinger
Thanks stinger, that kit is the 1/32 hasegawa G-14. I modeled it to represent an late version G-14.
The blond knight decals are excellent, they put a fair amount of research into them. There are two problems with ID of hartmanns aircraft. One hartmann records show he thinks he is flying a G-6 at one point when it’s clear that the aircraft in question is in fact G-14. Second he flew alot of 109 and records are not complete. No confirmed work number for his “white 1” has been found, so It’s unsure as to the true make of “white 1” most now believe it to be a G-14 and or he flew 2 similar marked aircaft as it’s is well known he stopped flying the black tulip becasue it was too easily recognised and his kill were falling off. A strong arugment for this is the canopy as not many G-6 at that time use the galland canopy.
The bottom aircraft if the sheet “double chevron” in the winter temp camo is actually a G-14/AS early version. Note the high tail, radio line placement, and larger oil cooler. Without going into great detail they moved stuff around to accept a uprated engine and a booster system. In a nut shell Early G-14 and G-6 can be in most cases impossible to tell apart visually unless you have the work numbers. later G-14 are different story.
If you are worried about accuracy don’t be. Unless something new has just surfaced no one for sure can tell you If it had a small of large mast. From the pics I am 100% sure it did not go into the fuselage. My version is not 100% accurate it is just my interpretation of that aircraft. If another 109 modeler who knew the 109 well were to take a good look at it they could find odd details that most would over look. The pics I have of it are pretty bad, as that was my first attempt at using a digital camera to post pics on the net. I should take updated photos.
]
Hmmm… I don’t know how I missed this thread until now.
According to the book “Messerschmitt Bf109F, G, & K Series, and Illustrated Study” by Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike, this is what they have to say about the subject: (I’ve included the preceding two paragraphs so as to put the paragraph that deals directly with the question into the proper context, I’ve put the “meat” so to speak in bold."
"Production of the initial version of the G-6 continued at an ever-increasing rate into the late summer of 1943, when the first improvements were worked into ongoing production. From about August 1943 aircraft on the production line received the Peilrufanlage radio navigation aid, whose direction-finding loop was mounted on the fuselage spine just in front of Frame 3. This installation received the official designation R7 which, in practice, was never used. The installation at the factory of the Peilrufanlage went hand in hand with a shortening of the antenna mast; when the navigation aid was retrofitted to older aircraft it was not uncommon to see the DF loop together with the earlier, tall antenna mast. Conversely, in the East the Peilrufanlage was often removed, as was the FuG25a, so that an entire series of aircraft flew with the short antenna mast but no direction-finding loop, although the base-plate was left in place on most aircraft.
Also introduced in late summer 1943, in an effort to improve all-round vision which was severely restricted by the all-metal head armor, was the so called Galland-Panzer, or Galland Armor. The upper section of the new armor was made of bullet-proof glass, which improved the pilot’s view to the rear somewhat.
Another improvement was the so-called Erla-Haube, or Erla Hood, which was introduced at the end of 1943 and which further improved the pilot’s all-round vision. The Erla-Haube was retrofitted to many aircraft, however the overwhelming majority were installed at the factory. The new hood replaced the folding and fixed rear portions of the earlier canopy and dispensed with the heavy framing of the earlier folding hood. Several types of hood were built, differening only in the curve of the upper canopy frame. The Galland-Panzer was installed in most cases; only rarely was the Erla-Haube seen with the earlier, all-metal armor. There was no standard installation of the short antenna mast. It was mounted either on the framing at the rear of the Erla-Haube and moved with the canopy when it was opened, or on the fuselage spine just behind the cockpit. In the latter case the mast was mounted on a base attached to a metal tube which ran around the rear wall of the cockpit. In a few instances the antenna mast was dispensed with altogether, in which case the antenna wire passed through the loop of the Peilrufanlage and was attached to the fuselage spine immediately behind the cockpit."
So the answer to the question is… You either attach it to the canopy, attach it just behind the canopy, or not at all. [:)]
For basic purposes that info is vague but correct. The info missing is why it would be neccessary to move the antenna line in the first place. If a 109 had the mast moved to the fuselage (A very hard location to service a commonly accessed thing on a G-6) This would typically mean it was equipped differently than your normal G-6. It had a power boost system, extra battery, radiar/camera or a special injection system added. Seeing a G-6 with a through the fuselage line would be highly ususual as this would require them to not only move the radio receiver but also some other stuff in the fuselage possibly even the fuel tanks themselves. The K-4 has this antenna set up because it’s radio sat up higher and further foward (obvious by the access door location) than a G-6. The K-4 also had and completely redesigned rear fuselage set up. basically the K-4 was a new 109 and not a upgrade. I would have to see an in service (not an EX or special service) picture to believe they would go through that much trouble to move an antenna. I am talking standered G-6 only. Not a G-6/U2 or a G-6/U3 (boosted G-6’s), G-6/U4N, G-6Y, G-6AS or any G-14, G-10, K-4 . Not saying someone didn’t do this to a G-6 as a field repair like I said eariler. Odds are against it being mounted to the fuselage as not many G-6 came with all the extras so to speek, and If you can find a K-4 type antenna you have a very odd standered G-6 indeed.
G-6/U4, G-6/U3 or G-6/AS Could go either on the canopy or on the fuselage mounted mast.
Espins you paragragh does not specify if they are only talking about the standered G-6 version or all G variants. Don’t get me worng I agree with it in terms of yes it can be mounted in all those ways on different G/K variants but not too likely on a standered G-6.
This is info only to clarify what espins added. It seem vague when I read it. Don’t get into a flurry if I left out some of my G variants codes as I pulled this from my crappy memory[xx(]. I just want to make sure as much right info gets out as possible because luftwaffe stuff is confussing enough as it is. I know some of you dislike “know it all’s” but if you have something to add please do becasue I don’t know it all and enjoy learning new tidbits. And like I said before I’m not a accuracy nut as my builds are not 100% accurate by a long shot. But if someone wants to know the correct way something was mounted I’ll try to help out.
Based on additional information in that book and other references that I have, the fuselage mounted antenae seems to be present only on those Bf109G-6’s that had the Erla Haube retrofitted in the field, which would also include those with no antenae at all (only seen a handful of photos with no antenae at all, not very common)… i.e. all the field modified G-6’s. Those with the original canopy had the antenae mounted on the back, fixed portion of the canopy, which was removed along with the hinged/opening portion of the canopy. Therefore, the antenae had to be moved.
It appears that the G-6’s with the antenae mounted to the canopy were ones that had the Erla Haube installed originally from the factory which would include different mounting of the radio etc. right from the get go.
The information I quoted pertains specifically to the Bf109G-6 as that was the variant in the original question. [:)]
For the purposes of building this model (I have both the G-6 and the G-14 on my workbench which he refers to in his posts) the radio equipment etc. is not included… so theoretically he can install it wherever he likes as he wouldn’t need to make the same modifications that were required on the real thing. [:D]
I see what you were saying now espins, yes that correct. If they installed the canopy as a field repair they may indeed moved the antenna location. This was not commonly done due to maintaince diffculties. I read it as it was common from the factory to have the antenna on a G-6 in any of the 3 locations or not at all. Sorry about that Espins and thanks for the info[:)]
Good discussion gents, lots of great info here. [:)]
I should have elaborated more in the original post when I typed up the exerpts from the book. (I was at work and had to be quick about it, if you know what I mean.) [;)]
Holy Cow…I didn’t think this would get into such a detailed discussion, but I do appreciate everything that has been contibuted, and within all the confusion I think I’ve found some clarity.
I think I’ll build this with the short mast attached to the canopy (as per the EagleCal info), but that depends on my success with making the canopy operable (I’ll let you all know how I do that if I am successful). I’ve put so much detail into the cockpit that I really don’t want it covered up with clear plastic, but I also don’t want to commit to having the canopy open (in general, I like my A/C to look “clean”, i.e. canopy closed). Assuming I can get the hinge system to work, I will then have to see what’s involved in allowing the antenna wire to stretch, if indeed it really needs to. Then again, if the hinge doesn’t work, it’s all a moot point, so I guess we’ll see.
Don’t look for any progress or pics anytime soon though. It’s still really cold in my garage working area, and I am away from home most of the time, but I do have a deadline of early May so I can take this model with me to Germany.
Thanks again everyone (and Scott, sorry I didn’t give you a heads up on this thread [:)]).
stinger
Gotta love the Germans and their consistant inconsistancy with all their WWII equipment… really makes the research tricky. I had a pretty busy week, so I hopped on board this discussion a bit late. As you know, the Bf109 is near and dear to my heart (along with Focke Wulfs, Panthers and Tigers right there behind it).
Good luck with the canopy and all. We’ll be “patiently” awaiting your photos sometime in the future amigo. [:)]