USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

As I have heard from esteemed members of this forum as well as someone who has done some restoration this particular aircraft should be in JG 52 markings. It looks like the interior colors are also wrong. However, if you check the links you can at least see what they have.

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...G10signa-1.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...109G10sign.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y.../Bf109G10b.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...G10cengine.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...f109G10a-1.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...groundcrew.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...m/IMG_9309.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...9G10cannon.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...ndinggeara.jpg

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Here's a bit more info.,

http://yumodelclub.tripod.com/batajn...two_me109s.htm

Regards,

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Thanks for the additional data.

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Their Me 262 is awful...it should be 501232 of KG(j)6, Yellow 5, with red and black "checkers".

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Richard Corey's article struck me as odd on 2 points; a) civilians willing to work for the Germans (another topic all together), and b) wnr 127xxx for a 109. Is that a legitimate number?

Don

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Based on the replies here and elsewhere the "accuracy" of many of the displays at the museum are in question. So are the markings on a particular aircraft more important than the fact that it shows a Bf109, etc., as it would have looked as it flew against 8th Air Force B-17s? If parts for the restoration for a given aircraft come from a number of wrecks, which markings do you use? Is the fact that the aircraft still exists in some form the more important point?

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Good questions, Chuck.

On the one hand we have the gross negligence on the part of the USAF Museum regarding authenticity when compared to the considerable lengths that NASM goes to in achieving accurate displays.

On the other hand, the alleged comments of the Dayton Museum director made in one of the recent posts here make sense, too. Let's face it: correct Bf 109 displays with the correct model number, correct color schemes, markings, Werknummern, etc., etc., etc., are only important to approximately .0000000000000001% of the population at large and about .000001% of the Museum's visitors. I'm sure those who run the place besides the director are fully aware of this. Go out and do a random street survey of 1,000 people and you will be lucky to find even one who can tell you what a WNF Bf 109 G-10 is.

So if the Museum's primary mission or business goal is not in conflict with its sloppy attention to accuracy, then it is hard to fault them from a management standpoint. I'm sure nobody at Wright-Pat is losing sleep over this issue.

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

If I was king for a day I would go for accuracy. I really believe they could accomplish both things at the same time. At the very least they should have the signs with the correct info and the aircraft should be the correct model for the markings.

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

The point isn't how many people would know the difference, it's maintaining standards of scholarship. A Bf 109 is every bit as deserving of accurate representation in a museum as a flint axe, a Roman sword or a Civil War musket.

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Nick,

I agree. How do they do things at the RAF Museum? Its' been years since I've been there.

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

It makes a difference to the director of the Museum. According to the comments he allegedly made and other evidence provided here by TOCH! members who were past visitors, the Museum doesn't give a hoot about accuracy and scholarship. But before we have the director and his staff boiled in oil or have the Museum shut down indefinitely, perhaps there are other issues involved that we don't know about such as budget limitations regarding restoration, directives from HQ USAF in Washington, morons running the place when the restoration was done many years ago, etc. If enough visitors wrote complaints about the mislabeling of their exhibits, it would eventually carry some weight and perhaps force changes in the way the place is run.

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

A museum "by definition" has some standards to aim for. One of the foremost is historical accuracy and the capability to teach people correct things (and not 56% or who knows what).

Some call it "nitpicking", others call it "standards of scholarship"... sue me, but I'll go forever where the latter are respected.

The price to pay will not be reflected in administrative terms but in knowledge terms and the risk is that by following this route, one day a museum will exhibit a "Roman musket" simply because no one will give a damn if it is wrong...

IMHO, of course...

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

yes...that Richard Corey bit is also totally incorrect in many ways.

The G-10 was not "re-built" from older aiframes...

Someone once told me..."museums are not historians...they are simply people who restore aicraft".

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

There are many people just like me who will gladly offer their time, expertise, money and "man power" to see that these artifacts are CORRECTLY displayed, at no cost to the museum or the tax payer. An artifact is presented as it's "type" and you only get one chance to get it right, before the errors start perpetuating themselves.

Hopefully, these exhibits will last for generations. It is inexcuseable to incorrectly display them.

I am a retired archaeologist. What damage would I cause, if in a tired and uncareing moment, or just plain spitefulness, I said an Oregon arrowhead was "Egyptian". I certainly would know it's untrue, but others later would say "see, here's proof, the Egyptians were in Oregon".

Absurd, yes, but we are dealing with history, and the hard won knowledge of a few serves to educate many, which is passed on. That's called a knowledge base.

We have so few of these "relics" left, that to an historian, or any person knowledgeable in the subject, it's practicaly criminal to pass on untruths.

It's even worse not to even care.

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

This tread seems to have departed from the original intent and, although the new contributors are both eloguent and relevant, it's a little like preaching to the choir.

In all fairness, Mr. Corey's contribution is almost a decade old and I can not help but wonder if he has discovered new information in the years since? For example, a quick look at Messerschmitt 109 werknummern shows not a single entry within the 120000 range, much less something for a G-14. Thus, the number 127914 must relate to something else.

Moreover, the number 610824 must also be suspect because there are apparently NO entries in the 610700 and 610800 blocks. Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe the number should probably read 610924.

Lastly, I seem to recall the enigma of a the second ID plate was solved some years ago, or am I mistaken?

Hal

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Gentlemen,

John Beaman and others wiser than I, have addressed this G-10 Werknummer situation before. The two aircraft in question are G-10/U4’s. Both are new build WNF airframes and not rebuilds. The number quoted, 127914, is most likely a fuselage Werknummer and not the final aircraft Werknummer.

I have collected data on late-war Fw 190s that clearly demonstrate that fuselages, tail units, landing gear and wings each have a unique six-digit (or more) “Werknummer.” While collecting information on captured or destroyed Luftwaffe aircraft, Allied units often mistook these for complete aircraft Werknummern and duly reported them as such.

Regarding Mr. Lake’s comments, I too have been suspicious of the WNr. 610824 because it falls outside of known G-10 Werknummer ranges. However, we have all seen absolute “facts” about Luftwaffe aircraft fall to new information.

Finally, to no avail, I also wrote to the AFM staff and offered them input regarding the correct markings of their Bf 109 G-10/U4. A lower level staffer actually admitted that the guy running the place at the time wasn’t interested in our help.

Steve Sheflin

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Dear Hal and Steve,

WNF produced the W.Nr block 610750 - 611100, and first test flights began in Jan 1945. There is a recorded loss of WNr. 610796 in Feb 1945...so I suspect the W.Nr. 610824 is correct. :)

Mike

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Ken,

Thanks for the updated information regarding WNF production. Always nice to add to one's knowledge of obscure data.

Hal

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

Hal,

I am interested in your information on test flying (you mean Einflug?) in early 1945 at WNF.
What kind of source does your information come from?
Does it mention place of Einflug (Wr.Neustadt, Markersdorf, Zwoelfaxing, Bad Voeslau)?
My partiicular interest is to compile production Werknummern, Stammkennzeichen and dates from WNF, (probably including DIANA and Goeyr production).

Martin from Austria

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

A slow reply but I've now been back to Hendon and the answer is that they generally show that aircraft in its original appearance. If they don't, they say on the display what they've done and what it originally was. Again, with replicas and multi-aircraft rebuilds, they tell you that they've chosen particular markings.

Re: USAF Museum Bf109 G10
 

HI Martin!

JaPo's Bf109G-10/U4 Production and Operational Service shows basic information on when certain blocks were test flown...but it does not state who test flew them or exact dates...

;)

Mike