Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

I am confused by the reason for the 2 production plates on the fuselage side.

It was already proven that the second plate did not indicate an older airframe updraged to G-10, as all G-10's were made new.

JaPo's G-10/U4 book explains it indicated "changes" at time of production, but the book does not explain the types of changes.

Were these "changes" possibly repairs done to damaged machines which had not yet left the hands of the manufacture - such as a replacement part after a failed test-flight or damaged while in transport?

The G-10 did have some upgrades as the months went on, but I do not think enough to warrant a second plate.

Can anyone clarify this?

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Not an answer to your question, but many (all?) of the Fw 190D-9s produced by Fieseler seems to have had two plates on the fuselage.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

New may mean new built parts or subassemblies from older variants like G-6.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

HI Franek...

Ah yes...but...no old subassmeblies (G-6) were used on the G-10. All G-10's were made new.;)

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Here's what I believe the second plate looked like (note: there was more than one version/style of this type of multi-entry box plate):

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.p...2a3lmh&thumb=4

I believe the word "änderungsstufe" roughly translates to "changes". Is that correct?

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Stephen,

Yes, that is correct! The spaces were for dates from what I understand...

mike

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

IMHO, some of the confusion may relate to two items. First, the length of time a major component of an aircraft, i.e., the fuselage may have been in inventory before it reached final assembly. I am not as familiar with the details of Bf 109 manufacturing as with some other Luftwaffe types but generally, fuselage, wings, power “egg”, empennage, etc., might not have been manufactured at the final assembly point. The fuselage generally carried the RLM W.Nr. for the aircraft and, in cases that can be documented, the RLM W.Nr. was assigned at the fuselage subassembly point. There might be weeks or even months between leaving the subassembly site and reaching final assembly, photos show fields full of Bf 109 fuselages awaiting wing, power eggs, etc.
Second, it would appear that whether an aircraft was considered Neubau or Umbau would depend when the BAL acceptance was made, thus a fuselage intended to become a G-6, if it was in production inventory, might be modified before final assembly and BAL acceptance to become another subtype and still be considered Neubau. If one looks at the acceptance sequences they are generally not in W.Nr. sequence. A “new” aircraft might be flown directly to another site following BAL acceptance and modified would be considered Umbau. Of course, when dealing with almost any aspect of Luftwaffe production during the last year of the war, exceptions are the rule and documentation may not exist. The goal was to push completed aircraft out the door (cave, or from under the trees).
Finally, IIRC, von Lutz may have firsthand sighting experience on this subject.
Best Regards,
Artie Bob

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

I am still conviced that the second plate indicated an old airframe rebuilt to the new Bf 109 version. Here you have an example o this :

http://www.yumodel.co.yu/batajnica_a...two_me109s.htm

During G-6 and G-14 reparation they were finished as new G-10. The word "changes" in this case means upgrade to a new version.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Mike
I do not mean recycled parts but new built parts in G-6/G-14 standard.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Grzegorz!

The link you provided has wrong information. ;)

For many years, it was thought that older G-6 airframes and G-14 airframes were used in the production of the G-10.

This is not the case, and was dis-proven around 4 years ago.

The G-10 was a "completely" new airframe, top to bottom, and no G-6 or G-14 airframes were used to "upgrade" or build to G-10 status.

I do agree with you ArtieBob on the previously made parts, fuselage, etc. being used in construction, but it would not solve the mystery of the 2nd data plate....I'll explain why.

The WNF "DIANA" plant (which only manufactured the G-10/U4) is a perfect example. Fuselages were completely newly-made in tunnel 217A; tunnel 217C manufactured newly-made wings, and 217B made wing components. The aircraft was then transported for final assembly at the railway station as Tisnov.

The only assembly made OUTSIDE of the plant were the tail surfaces (rudder), which were of the wooden type and once manufactured, sent to the plant for assembly.

Everything on the G-10 was made new in it's entirety, and no G-6 or G-14 parts, sub-assemblies, or fuselages were used in the construction...yet machines were found at DIANA (after the surrender) had this 2nd data plate.

Also, my concerns on information in the web article provided above are as follows:





There are some instances and 1 or 2 photos that show older tail surfaces (small rudder), elevator, even a completely older tail, on the G-10 (different camouflage pattern), but after thorough examination, it was proven that these were done to get the aircraft flyable (in the field) to make the surrender to Neubiberg (American side) and escape the Russian Advance. And I think there were only 2 aircraft which had this done.

Various G-10's constructed at WNF DIANA (which made all aircraft new), had this dual tag (found after the German surrender). So that disproves the theory of an older Fuselage (G6 or G-14) being used in the construction, and the reason for that data plate.

I thought the tag "may" have been for field use (entering dates or changes when a major assembly was replaced in the field), but if that were the case, all aircraft would have had dual tags, which is not the case.

hmmm...

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

The two plates caused a lot of confusion in the past. As Mike and Artie already explained, the G-10 was a new built airframe and it represented the last G model incorporating all the "improvements" of the previous models (G-6 & G-14).
The second plate on the Bf 109G-10 WNr.610937, with the inscription 109143G14U4 127914 is a fuselage subassembly plate. 109143 means 109.143 which is the Baugruppe designation for all G-6 and G-14 fuselages, and so very probably also for the G-10 because the fuselage shells are identical for all those three types. G14U4 indicates that this fuselage was probably made for the 51x xxx WNr-series bulit by WNF, but never got to the G-14 assembly lines. 127914 is just the fuselage subassembly number. The simplified subassembly plate is characteristic for the late WNF production.
IMHO, this fuselage was just one of many preproduced fuselages and other subassembly parts that weren't used immediately on the assembly lines, but when the production changed to G-10's the preproduced fuselages (as they are the same) were normally used for further production.
So this G-10 hasn't got a used G-14 fuselage, but a brand new fuselage which was only intended for the G-14 production.
The Änderungsstufe plate was added to indicate subsequent changes that might appear during the operational use of the aircraft.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

It means a little more, I think. It means "alteration level/stage" and I have an example of an Fw 190 "Receiving "alteration 137" which I would guess was a modification specified for all aircraft of a given model (or performing a given role).

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

HI Tomislav!

Question...

"The Änderungsstufe plate was added to indicate subsequent changes that might appear during the operational use of the aircraft"

Only dates were added into this spot, as shown on the G-10 here in the USA...so if it was intended to indicate changes, why only show a date? Seems reduntant, unless the chnages were indicated as well. Also, why were these plate not found on all G-10's? and why ONLY G-10's?

Seems odd, no?

;)

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

I looked into Messerschmitt JaPo Bf 109G-10/U4 (page 9). Here is an explanation of this second plate used on G-10 version. The word “Anderungsstufe” means exactly “level of changes”. This plate pointed to the dates of changes made during production period. To put in other words it meant that all by date actual modifications had been done. This explanation sounds reasonable.
But I can’t still believe that all defected or damaged aircraft were repaired to their original version. It would be nonsense. Moreover it would be very often impossible to do because parts which would be necessary to repair a particular plane might have been inaccessible. Certainly all repaired planes have been upgraded to new versions. I can’t imagine that the old G-6 and G-14 parts in such a country like Germany were simply recycled. I don’t believe that all G-10 planes were completely new and the factories used to their production new parts only. Good example of that is “yellow 11” (Gigi) from II./JG 52. It is evidently a mixture of G-6 and G-10. Such a mixture had to be done in a factory only and not in any case as a field modification.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Mike and Grzegorz,

Mike, thats a really good question. If I remember correctly, on the Änderungsstufe plate of WNr.610937 only one field was stamped with the 12.44 date. in the JaPo book the possibility was mentioned that this date could represent the date of production, which in the case of 610937 could be true. I have never seen a plate with two or more fields stamped, so I guess we can't really determine if the fields were only date stamped without the indicated changes or with the changes. An other explanation could be that the 12.44 was the date of the U4 modificaton. On the other hand, all of the WNF produced G-10's were U4's and the modification was already done during production, so IMHO there was actually no need to specially express the date of this modification. I've looked through a few photos and I think that even not all DIANA prodused G-10 had that second plate. It would be nice to know if ERLA produced G-10/R6's had such or similar plates.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Certainly all repaired planes have been upgraded to new versions.

I see no reason for being so dogmatic. AIthough it may not have been possible to restore damaged aircraft to their historic "as delivered" condition, neither would it have been practical to bring all such up to the very latest standards. Whatever the pressure for new aircraft in the frontline, there is an equal demand for airframes in the training and other second-line roles, for which a lower level of performance is required and used/tired airframes would be perfectly acceptable. A G-6 with DB605A would do perfectly well, possibly even releasing new G-10s for the front line.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Graham,
Generally you are right. But as you mentioned to restore aircraft to their original condition original parts were needed. It was no reason to produce old parts for damaged aircraft and restore damaged aircraft to training tasks when you had in stock to disposal a lot of out of date planes. Luftwaffe needed more and more modern planes and all parts which were useful to produce new aircraft were used to this purpose. It is impossible to assume that rare in the second half of 1944 in Germany metal parts were used to restore training aircraft and in contrary modern aircraft were built of wood.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Grzegorz,

I am familiar with the JaPo book...;)

ALL G-10's were made new, not from damaged, repaired, or older airframes. Also, not all damaged or defective 109's were repaired, nor were they upgraded to new versions. There were repair facilities...however the level or repair was most likely only enough to get it in the air.

DIANA had a repair facility, but those were only for airframes which were damaged while still in the hands of the manufacturer...such as problems during test flight, US attack on trains while in transport, etc.

Older G6 and G-14 airframes were not recycled into newer aircraft.

"Yellow 11" is the only example with evidence of an older tail new tail, and as all G-10's were made new, it was concluded that the modification done was most likely to get it into the air to the Neubiberg to surrender to the US and escape the Russians.

Field modification did include tail replacement, and repairs like that have been known to happen in the field quite regularly. If you have a damaged tail on an otherwise airworthy airplane, you install a good tail from an unairworthy aircraft. The tail attaches with 6 bolts if I remember correctly...so it is a very easy installation.

:)

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Tomislav,

That is correct...only some G-10's from DIANA had the second plate... ;)

Originally I was concluding that the second plate was to indicate a "level of change" to the aircraft, done due to a bad test flight, or damage while still in the hands of the manufacture (while in transport, etc.). It would have been a good reference for the test pilot who sent the airplane back to manufacture for repair, to see a "change" indicated...knowing that the problems he pointed out were in-fact repaired and not overlooked.

Of course..checking my photo reference I have found unfinished airframes from DIANA that had that plate...so that probably rules out my theory... :(

Mike

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Harrison987,
I think that this problem is not so simple. During the second half of 1944 and in the beginning of 1945 there were a lot of damaged aircraft in hands of Germans. Tell me if you know what was the destiny of useful parts (airframes, wings) from these aircraft. You know that to their production were used rare materials. Reparation of Bf 109G-6 to Bf 109G-6 in 1944/45 only to get it in the air did not get any sense.

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

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Mike: I think you're being a little too dogmatic there. Improvements, or at least changes, would continue to be made to the G-10 design throughout production. It is not beyond possibility that a batch of fuselages made to a given modification standard could be "caught" and "upgraded" before moving to final assembly. I'm not saying that this is the reason for these dual plates (or offering any other theory), just qualifying your comments above.

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Mike,
perhaps I was not able to express my opinion more clearly - sorry, that's one of the disadvantages being a german native speaker ;-)

I agree with you, that making those changes AFTER production/delivery probably didn't cause the dual plates.
I meant that AFTER design of the "basic" G-10 the design might go on. In that case it would make sense to differentiate(?) a/c which got the "new" design features DURING construction from those which did not.
So - if I am correct, which I'm not sure of - there might be cases in which a newly produced a/c needs a special "mark" which shows, what changes were incorporated DURING production.
In that cases a date might be a good way to show, how "up-to-date" an a/c is.
The problem with this speculation is: why six fields, if you only need to stamp ONE date? Or could it be that if the airframe is stamped during production and more changes are incorporated afterwards, one needs another date?

Perhaps some of the other members have documents on this topic? Otherwise we might guess for ages ;-)

(As you certainly know there were changes on earlier variants - sometimes without changing the designation. There existed lists containing these changes and the work numbers of the concerned planes. But this was AFTER production/delivery of course.)

Best regards

R. Zimmer

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Guys,

DIANA only produced 400 aircraft. Any design change would certainly have been made to ALL aircraft after the change, not just a few...and ALL aircraft made after the design change, or upgrade would have certainly had this dual tag (assuming that was the reason).

That is not the case.

Tags were found on some aircraft in early blocks, also later. Many aircraft wtihin those SAME blocks had only a single tag.

If design changes were being done (as some were on earier G1 to G-14) aicraft) it does not make sense to ONLY have the G-10 with a dual plate. Why have it at all? The G-10 was the most advanced Messer. Dual tags would have also been used on the F, earlier G's or K if that ws the case.

I can understand if the tag actually "indicated" any change...but it did not. It only indicated a date.

If any design changes were being done, it would have been very minor if at all...and I have no knowledge of any design changes.

hmmmm...

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hello Guys,

After reading the last few posts and a few hours of quality brainstorming, I think another possibility should be considered. Ralph's posts actually gave a clue. With the "Änderungsstufe" (degree of change), we all immediately thought that something had to be improved or upgraded. Maybe the situation was quite the opposite - the airframe/airplane was downgraded. It is proven that some G-10 from Erla and WNF production were powered with a DB 605AS, not exclusively with the DB 605D. It is not know if the AS engines were installed already during the production proces on the assembly lines, or some time later. Nevertheless, each G-10 could be fitted with an AS engine after some minor changes to the bearers. If I remember correctly, even a field-manual for this was issued. So perhaps these "Änderungsstufe" indicates a G-10 with an AS engine.
I know, it would have been a lot more logical and easier for us to understand, if they in that case had just added a second plate with the inscription "AS powered" instead of "12.44" or similar. Perhaps really the date on the "Änderungsstufe" meant this is a G-10/U4, stand 12.44 ?!

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Tomislav!!!

I actually did consider something similar a few weeks ago. The problem is that the AS and DB engines took B4/87 Fuel.

DIANA had the DB (87) in the early stages, and all others were DC engines (C4). I cross-referenced all fuel filling signs, and unfortunautly, "C4" was on aircraft which had both tags, and also aircraft with just the one, ruling out the installation of an AS engine :(

So that tag could not be an engine-related...

I WISHED it was though...would have made the most sense :(.

Mike

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

C7 fuel?? Sure it is not C4 you mean?

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

HA!!!

yes thank you!!! I think I type too fast! I just correctedt above...

Thank you!

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

This isn't right because the plate "Änderungsstufe" was found on a Erla-built G-14/AS too (for example) like the well known "Rita" from Fw. Eberhard Gzik (2./JG 300).

Best wishes
Rasmussen

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

Hi Rasmussen,

Rita was actually an Erla-built G-10 built on an older G-14/AS airframe.

She had the 605D and taller tail wheel wheel which only specific to the G-10 and K. She also, had the larger oil tank and different cowling than the regular G-14/AS...but also retained the smaller mail wheel tires...

It was a very unique airframe, probably as she was one of the earliest G-10's built.

There is some speculation and disagreement over "Rita" being a G-14/AS or G-10...however once you have the 605D and tall tail, you pretty much conclude she was a G-10, as those were features that were only slated for the G-10/K.

G-14/AS and G-10 production were almost simultaneous during the transition period, so being an early G-10, she had a lot of G-14/AS features from the older airframe she was built from...

So...

As she was a built as a G-10, she has the two data tags

;)

Mike

Re: Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates
 

We speak about the same a/c? I don't believe it ... but now a haven't time I must on work.

Best wishes
Rasmussen