Bf 109 inflight refueling ?

S

shaba

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
28 January 2008
Messages
126
Reaction score
8
found an image on facebook that proports to be a bf 109 modified for inflight refueling with a long boom hinged to the underside.
:'( well the image i was hoping to post has disappeared but Ive seen a photograph of this aircraft before but speculation was that it was a antenna . in the photo i saw on facebook the boom was attached to the dorsal side of a ju 88.
 
Re: bf 109 inflight refueling

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/116369d1261585866-bf109-pipe-testranlageoperation.jpg
found the same picture at ww2aircraft also some disscussion on the use of this boom.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf109-pipe-22199.html
 
Re: bf 109 inflight refueling

Great find Shaba,


and I never saw it before.
 

Attachments

  • 109.jpg
    109.jpg
    49.9 KB · Views: 490
Careful, I only found the assumption, that it was a kind of refueling boom on that site, besides a lot of
other ideas. And if so, it doesn't seem to be a very practial solution for such a small aircraft, definitely
a test installation only.
 
at first i think, this Aircraft testing a FLAMETHROWER as Weapon
but then i realize that i have see this configuration before:

a tube going from Engine to tail with second tube connected to tube end

this BF 109 is a "Himmelsschreiben" or Skywriting, what was very popular in German in 1930s
a Skywriting use the engine exhaust and motor oil injected into the hot exhaust manifold, what produced thick white smoke.

only question to is
what to hell makes a BF 109 with this equipment ?
used on Military Parade ? write nazi propaganda in sky for Göbbels ?
 
An often heard explanation in the mentioned forum was equipment for laying a smoke screen.
AFAIK, "Sky writers" only needed a special tank for oil to be blown into the exhaust pipes.
 
this BF 109 is a "Himmelsschreiben" or Skywriting, what was very popular in German in 1930s
Click to expand...
I think Bf 109 had far insufficient maneuverability for such a task.
This installation has been discussed for many years now, with no positive ID as far as I know...
I only see, the beam is faired to an airfoil section, what suggests it was be lowered in flight at a pretty significant angle.
 
A picture showing the front.
Mystery Bf 109......
This photograph show a Messerschmitt Bf 109 of unknown subtype (E-? or T-?).
Can You identify the special equipment carried, and/or the subtype?
Mail me for a larger image for close-up studies!
Andreas Brekken
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.stormbirds.com/eagles/album/mystery_0001/Mystery_0001.html
 

Attachments

  • Bf_109_Mystery_0001_small.jpg
    Bf_109_Mystery_0001_small.jpg
    15.4 KB · Views: 433
i check my data
If this can be a Flamethrower

according
Heinz J. Nowarra "Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945" volume 4 page 135
and
Dieter Herwig and Heinz Rode "Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Ground Attack & Special purpose Aircraft"
Page 263

they Test of Flamethrower and inflammable oil thrower as defense for Bomber and reconnaissance plane.
in February 1940 the RLM tested on Ju 88A-4, He 111 and BF 109 at testsite Tarnewitz.
but the Test were not a success
 
Well, I'd say the thing had something to do with liquid or gas - there apparently is a piping running on top of the beam, covered with a fairing except of its initial part, ending with some kind of a nozzle or socket at the rear end.
But I think, the whole installation is greatly over-engineered for a flamethrower, complicated and significantly degrading aircraft performance. There were flamethrowers installed on e.g. Ju 88 indeed, but they were just fixed pipes protruding below the tail, with no need for lowering etc.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/start-finish-builds/86040d1299760942t-udo-corde-ju-88c-6-zerst-rer-5k-rt-wk-nr-360379-9-eis-kg-3-ea_1_b.jpg
http://vpbhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Ju88_flamethrower.jpg
 
Actually, the original idea was to produce thick black smoke, that stick on enemy fighter cockpit window or even suffocates it's engine
 
Michel Van said:
Actually, the original idea was to produce thick black smoke, that stick on enemy fighter cockpit window or even suffocates it's engine
Click to expand...
the version used on the He111 and the Ju88 was intended for self defence but the gero units fitted to the Fw190 and the Bf109 were for ground attack laying down a stripe of flame or so it was intended
 
Grzesio said:
...I only see, the beam is faired to an airfoil section, what suggests it was be lowered in flight at a pretty significant angle.
Click to expand...

I agree. Reminds me of proposed antenna installations for postwar AEW aircraft.
(http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1626.msg13567.html#msg13567)
Not to be misunderstood, I don't think of this aircraft as an AEW aircraft ! But maybe there was the idea of
carrying a big vertical antenna on small aircraft ? Don't know the date of that photo, but the Bf 109E may
have been already outdated then and so more easily available as a test aircraft.
 
A bit oversized, isn't it ? ;)
Or maybe it doubled as stowage for the pilots personal baggage ?
 
Sea surface mechanic-arm sensor from the BV 143 antiship missile?
 

Attachments

  • BV.jpg
    BV.jpg
    79.1 KB · Views: 317
  • BV143-A-01-680x456.JPG
    BV143-A-01-680x456.JPG
    44.8 KB · Views: 288
  • BV143-A-02-680x359.JPG
    BV143-A-02-680x359.JPG
    23.3 KB · Views: 296
I don't think that refueling or flamethrowing are plausible explanations.
  1. The Bf109 would not carry enough fuel to make the either role worthwhile, even experimentally.
  2. For refueling, you'd want the tanker above and the receiver below. The receiver has to be able to see the tanker and the tanker should see the receiver, for safety reasons. In modern, rigid-boom systems, an operator in the tanker actually flies the boom to the receiver.
  3. The boom seems overly long for flamethrowing. It would be hard to avoid hitting it on the ground, and the lay out seems ill suited for lowering and retracting.
I think it is a fixed antenna of some kind, perhaps for some sort of passive signal collection system. The rear-fuselage connection is a cable conduit. Afairing has been removed from the front of the boom, which is mounted on a fighter because the fighter has the excess power to haul it up to altitude.
 
Given how meticulous he and his colleagues are with History, as their reader also, it would probably have been sacrilegious to draw a plane that was not yet in service just for a good joke.

15 Nov 1941 - The de Havilland Mosquito light bomber enters service with No. 105 Sqn at RAF Swanton Morley, Norfolk. However, it was on 31 May 1942 that the Mosquito took part in its first operational raid (Cologne).
Click to expand...

Source:


By the way, IMOHO given that the Bf is a T model, this looks to be only a system for layering smoke screen.

For the BV143, I am pretty sure that this boom is only a Mechanical system to fly at a constant height low above the sea (a sea skimming sensing probe for the then rudimentary autopilot).
 
Last edited:
Justo Miranda said:
Hi
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/wklpoe
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/wklpoe/can_stol_aircraft_have_devices_like_such_or/
Click to expand...
Weight-shaft is another way to control airplanes ... see hang-gliders.
An advantage is that it eliminates aerodynamic drag from control surface deflection ... see Concorde pumping fule weight forward or aft to help with pitch trim at supersonic speeds.
A disadvantage is that moving the center-of-gravity too far aft can produce an unrecoverable stall/spin. STOL competitors are already operating right on the edge of a stall. Many like to fly approaches on the backside of the power curve.
Moving weights is slower than moving control surfaces.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom