Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Actually, Mr. Cisek, the problem is quite simple. It appears that you are not familiar with the primary RLM and Luftwaffe documentation which is available. From copies of RLM documents, it appears Neubau assembly of Bf 109 G-6s continued through February 1945 and in parallel, Reparatur of the same subtype. The records are very specific. If you look at loss lists and OOBs you will still see G-6s operational very late in the war. Took a minute and looked at the loss lists for March 1945 and found combat losses for G-6s as late as March 26 with III./JG 5, I doubt if these were the last. So, returning G-6s to service does make sense if the Luftwaffe was still using them as operational aircraft and was sustaining losses.

What does not make sense is trying to rationalize without having sufficient information to reach rational conclusions. Of course, there was a highly effective organization within the Luftwaffe to recover, salvage and repair wrecked and damaged aircraft. This AKAIK never fed back to Neubau production. If you understand or have any experience with production planning you will know many reasons why this might not have been done.

I suggest this site is a very good place to ask specific questions and receive answers from a number of people who have access to good primary data. It is not a substitute for an individual spending the time and effort to study and learn the basics from sources which are not always simple to find, but are available if one really wants to understand or make sense of the subject.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Mr. Artie Bob,
Thank you for your explanation of the subject for me. I know the loss list and the fact that G-6 production lasted marginally until February 1945. They were not the same basic G-6 as from 1943 or spring 1944 but the latest subversions. The loss lists I studied several years ago and I know that Bf 109G-6 losses (also marginally) we can find practically until the end of the war. But I do not have enough knowledge to doubt that parts from damaged planes were used to built new planes. Maybe the sources I read about this subject were obsolete, maybe I read not attentively enough.
I had a lot to do with production planning (I am an engineer) and I have an experience with using used parts to production as well. I can’t say that it is quite simple to do (quality systems) but is possible. Of course in the end we receive a second class product but still useful and acceptable regarding quality.
I think that we discuss off topic problem and I suggest to concentrate on main subject of this topic.
Best Regards,
Grzegorz Cisek

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Grzegorz,

It seems the main confusion (and please correct me if I am wrong), is that you are concluding that damaged or old parts from other aircraft were used in the built of late-war Me109's...such as the G-10. And using "Yellow 11" as an example.

It was proven many times already that this was never the case.

Which brought up the main topic of question...which was the reason for the second data plate on the G-10...and the G-10 only. This 2nd plate was on various new-built Me109G-10's, so I am trying to determine the exact use.

;)

mike

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Mike,
I must admit that I’ve never read about using to production completely new parts only. I’ve met every now and again pieces of information that parts from damaged planes were used to new production and old airframes were finished as new versions. I found it as a natural process . But this subject has never been investigated by me and maybe it was the reason of my confusion. We learn something new each day. :)
Regarding dual plates found only on G-10. As we know G-10 is rather a specific version of Gustav and briefly to say it was a temporary version. G-10 project based on G-6 /G-14 airframes and in order to put DB 605D to "old" airframes some changes were needed. In my opinion the reason that the second plate concerning changes we found on G-10 only was connected with this problem. I don’t think that the second plate had anything to do with planes damaged during production process. Of course it is only my supposition.
Grzegorz

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Grzegorz!

Yes, it is a learning process... :). I learn new things every day...and sometimes I also make mistakes...

There were some very minor change needed to install the 605DB, and 605DC, but the chages were very negligable (the G-14/AS set-up was almost identical), and for sure not enough to warrant a second data plate.

The 2nd plate was not on all G-10's, remember...

I did have the thought of a DB or DC installation...but that also would not make sense to me :(.

The search goes on!!!

G-10: Dual Production Plates, factory repair and old parts
 

Gentlemen,

concerning the second data plate I looked up JaPo's Messerschmitt Bf109G-10/U4, which contains photos of both types of data plate. I did not see any "first-hand-source" so the following are just my SPECULATIONS:

Firstly, "Änderungsstufe" literally translates as "degree of changes".
This MIGHT mean, that a "mark" for every change could be added there. As this photo (Japo, page 9) shows only one "mark" (12.44) this might be a date. This date, as stated earlier in this thread, might show the date up to which all changes are included.
Remember, that even after finishing the design of a special subtype the design work went on. As seen on the G-6 variant one might see new sub-assemblies like canopies, rudders and so on - but the a/c is still called a G-6.
My theory is that these "changes" might be changes in the design of a special subtype, which were incorporated during production.
An a/c produced around -say - October might thus have no second data plate, while one produced in December 1944 has one with one entry.
An a/c produced in March 1945 might have more of this entries.
In that way one is able to differentiate between a/c of the "same" subtype, which is useful in maintenance and ordering of spare parts.
Of course, these are speculations - including a lot of "might-be's" ;-)

Concerning the "Industrieinstandsetzung" (roughly: factory repair) the story of the Australian War Memorial G-6, WNr. 163824(?), shows that even in December 1944 there were "old" parts (IIRC F-subassemblies) used to repair damaged a/c. In this case the airframe was even "downgraded" from a G-6/AS to a G-6 with a DB605A! So, "everything seems to be possible"...

As to the use of "old parts" in G-10-production, I had the impression, that the G-10 used tools and jigs from the Bf109G-production to get an a/c with nearly K-4-performance without having to retool the production line.
In this case subassemblies produced at an earlier date would be used if they fitted into the G-10 design.
As DIANA produced G-14/U4 of the 51x.xxx block before switching to G-10 (JaPo, page 10) it is possible that G-14 subassemblies like fuselages were used in the later production.

To return to my speculation, I don't think, that this usage would cause the fitting of a second data plate. As the a/c is finished at a later date and the main data plate already contains the "new" variant designation (G-10) it would not be useful or even confusing.

These are my thoughts - corrections, additions and further information most welcome!

Best regards

R.Zimmer

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Ralph,


Early G-10's as well as late G-10's varied whether or not they had the second date plate. There was no standardization.

It is very possible that there were left-over G-14/U4 fuselages, spare parts, etc. (all which were identical to the G-10) that were used in the G-10 production, but certainly they would have been used up within the first werk number batch as there was no room to store mass amounts of G-14 fuselages or major parts.

We already know DIANA made everything new on the G-10...from one tunnel to the next (G-14 fuselage aside). The G-6 in question (Australia) was certainly a "field modification", which I mentioned earlier (2 damaged fuselages to make 1 good; replacement engine of what was on hand, etc.). Modification and repairs of aircraft in the field were common, in order to get a a damaged aircraft operational.

DIANA aircraft were identical, apart from the later werk number blocks which had flettner tabs on the ailerons. All were G-10/U4, and no other subtypes were made.

If the second plate was there to "further modify" the aircraft in the field, all G-10's would have had the plate.

The only thing added onto the 2nd plate was a date, so there was no way to "differentiate between a/c of the "same" subtype, which is useful in maintenance and ordering of spare parts." - remember, aircraft of the same werk number block could have gone to any country, to any unit. A simple date entry would not have been enough information to differentiate changes done, or help in referencing what spare parts were needed for what.

I agree there must be something more to this plate...

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Mike
A wild guess. I am wondering if those plates were applied to aircraft that had to be modified before they left the factory. This could be both to a faulty design or an improvement. I cannot see any other logical reason.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Mike, Franek,

perhaps this second data plate did show the date, up to which all design changes were incorporated?
In this case one date would be sufficient, if there is a list which contains all changes with their dates.
The data plate would be fittet in the factory because this changes were imcoporated there, not in the field.
In that case this plate would show the state of "improvement" of a certain a/c.

Concerning the AWM-G-6: IIRC this a/c was factory-repaired in MÜNSTER in December 1944 - not at the front. Of course, one can not state with certainty that the rudder(?) was not fitted earlier in the field.

Best regards

R. Zimmer

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

HI Ralf...

But..your conclusion does not fit. ALL G-10/U4's as DIANA were made new. That was already proven. The only thing made elsewhere was the rudder.

There were no design changes necessary if the aircraft was assembled using NEWLY manufactured parts...so the theory of adding an "improvement" does not make sense. and if known improvement were possible, they simply would not improve one aircraft...and not the next.

You must remember that the G-6 was a completely different aircraft, already obsolete by 1943...so upgrades and changes were necessary. The G-10 was NOT a part of the regular G-series. It was a brand-new aircraft design, which was the MOST advanced fighter built before the K. therefore no "upgrades" were necessary. Flettner tabs were not even in the original K design, and the G-10 had it...

I considered the engine (DB or DC) as the reason for the 2nd plate, however that too does not fit, as both DC and DB powered G-10's had both tags.

It would make more send to have a G-6 or G-14 with 2 data plates (which went through numerous changes)...not the most advance fighter built.

So...still no conclusion...the hunt goes on.

Mike