Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

I don't know if this will display correctly, but here is the latest version of the new build production data from primary sources.
Bf 109 NeubauSubtypeFactory19441945TotalsJanFebMarAprMayJunJul AugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarG 5Erla5063566260237G 5/R2ErlaScheduled-not built0G 6Mttr4303091353435506596622602425053109193812G 6Erla291270203200319300106295642048G 6WNFScheduled-not built0G 6/R2WNF1302132G 6/U2Erla3831143G 6/U4WNF119513034041181442403340141466G 6/U4Györ161531G 6ASMttr11Ga 6Györ4265014171730176G 8WNF165739112G 8/R5WNF591101112089277216763107915G 8/R5GYör29231G 8/U3WNF11G 10Erla15227967103384544G 10Mttr4108623177G 10/R6Erla49191269178284971G 10/U4WNF12913295356G 14Mttr440144305911115747889G 14Erla23247233925781146G 14/U4WNF591482199856112593G 14/U4GYör3232G 14/U4KöB92029G 14ASMttr0G 14ASErla591482199856112593K 2ErlaScheduled-not built30337910120321162111270K 2WNFScheduled-not built0K 3ErlaScheduled-not built0K 3/R2ErlaScheduled-not built0K 4Mttr152932213253382331681593Totals932715804100610651230104313741718179315581147122187671617198
Best regards,

Artie Bob

EDIT: See http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/attach...2&d=1171563417

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

If it is an Excel sheet, or any other type of file, you might try and add it as an attachement.

You can always try and see if the code option works, see:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/images/editor/code.gif

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Lets try again!

rh: original attachement deleted upon request

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

A beautiful table, Art, thank you very much for taking the time and effort to produce it and share it with the rest of us. Just out of curiosity, what is the sigmificance of the BOLD numbers?

Just a couple of tiny points: You might want to move the G14AS numbers up by one line, because right now you have Erla producing 1270 K2s, when, if memory serves, they produced none. But, Regensburg apparently produced one. It was labelled W.Nr. 300 056 in its Weight and Balance report of 1.2.1944, but was referred to as W.Nr. 60 056 in MttR production reports of both 4.9.1944 and 6.Okt.1944.

And also, this superb table, created, as you say, from primary sources, shows just how inconsistent those primary sources appear to be. For example, the table, if I'm reading it correctly, shows no G14s produced until August '44, and yet the Brits captured one on 22 July 1944.

Was there only ever one Neubau G6AS? Interesting, because Schmoll indicates the following serials of G6AS produced by Regensburg in July 44 alone: 163 430 - 163 435, 163 765 - 163 787, 163 826 - 163 837, and some from the series 163 800 - 163 825. This production of G6ASs appears to have continued through Dec 44.

But, even if the numbers aren't 100%, they still give a good indication of what models of the 109 were produced throughout 1944 and into 1945. So, thank you, again.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Hello Artie,

I don't know your primary sources .... but most of the numbers regarding Erla are wrong. The best example is the number of produced G-14/AS. It's documented by some original plans that Erla produced only 135 G-14/AS and not more. Then I miss the G-5/AS/R2 (I believe R2 was right I'm on work now) and the September of the last G-5 is wrong too. Erla had never to built K-2 and K-3, I miss the single K4/R6 and so on. So would be interesting to know what's your source.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

P.S.: My memory wasn't the best :-)). See my second posting later.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Hello

You might take a look at this page
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/RLM/RLM44.html

RLM aircraft production January 1944 - November 1944.Based on C-Amts Monatsmeldungen

Best
Olve Dybvig

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

He hasn't returned to answer, but I'm pretty sure Artie Bob's records come directly from documents that he's found in the U.S. Archives.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

The production at MWG Györ, Hungary, is also far from complete.
AFAIK, there were well over 700 Bf 109Ga-4s, Ga-6s, Ga-8s, Ga-14s and Ga-10s built in Hungary, between 1943-1945 (some in co-operation with WNF).

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Yeah, something is not right with the positioning of the table. Ie. it says 109K-4 production only starting in Septemer 1944, but in fact the Japo 109K book notes quite a few 109K-4s completing their acceptance flights in August already. Quite a feat for a plane produced a month later ! ;)

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

I guess the documents are to "old" and wrong or incomplete in many parts --- for example the Erla K's and G-5 again.

Fact: there was planned to built by Erla the K - 2 ... but: the plan was from November 1943. In January 1944 nobody spoke about the K - 2 but the K-2/R3. In May the complete K-2/R3 production plan was shelved.
Fact: there was planned to built by Erla the K-3 and K-3/R2. The plan was from December 1943 ... but in January 1944 during a conference of "Arbeitsgruppe 109" was said "Sorry, was an mistake. Isn't the K-3 but the the K - 1 and isn't the K-3/R2 but the K-1/R2." But the production plan was shelved like the other K - plans too.
Fact: from the K-4/R6 the Erla factory delivered for sure 1 a/c - in February 1945, known by W.Nr. and BAL date published at first by Prien/ Rodeike and result of my researches.
Fact: there was planned not to built the G-5/R2 ... but: in January 1944. In July and August 1944 were built G-5/R2/AS --- in Antwerpen they got the AS - engines.

Independent from this and other mistakes it's an interesting list ... the 295 G-6 built in November 1944 and the 25 G-14 were sold to RLM as G-14 (wasn't an difference in price) but it seems that most of this "G-14" were in technical sight G-6 because there were problems with delivery of MW50 device. Some of this "G-14" were found in ANR.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

I was off teaching today, but here are replies in sequence:



General:

There are two sources for this data, C-AMT Monatsmeldung and the Gen .Qu.(6 Abt.III C) Flugzeugverteilung for various months from Jan 44 to Mar 45. The data as far as I can tell represents neubau Flugzeug accepted by the Luftwaffe (which would mean after flight test acceptance by BAL).



There is an error in positioning for two rows. The Mttr G 14AS row should total 1270 and the Erla G 14 AS row should total 107.



The bold numbers represent data that was not specific as to location. In some cases this seems pretty clear as no plant other than WNF built G 8 /R5s. Others are possibly split between more than one location. The overall subtype totals should not change.



G.Hopp- You are correct on the positioning of two rows (see above), my mistake when trying o reformat so I could post the table as an attachment here.



Rasmussen- As I noted (see above), two rows were mispositioned, but only two, so the numbers from my data show 107 Erla G 14AS produced, as the bold numbers indicate, the split by plant could be off for Dec 44 , Feb and Mar 45. I had to make a choice of how to present the data, this was my compromise.

Rasmussen- “ I guess the documents are to "old" and wrong or incomplete in many parts”. Hell no! The sources were chronologically correct, from RLM sections that had to do with production and distribution and more definitive than any other overall documentation I have seen! My sources are now identified, where did you get your information?



Olve Dybvig- please note that my table agrees with the data at SIG Norway for Jan-Mar 44 (the only months of the Monatsmeldung that are posted at that site).



Dénes- This being Luftwaffe data, it does not include aircraft directly accepted by Hungary, also, as clearly stated, does not include production prior to Jan 1944 or after Mar 45.



Kurfurst-I frankly don’t care what the Japo 109K book says, where did they get their information? Other than my typo errors incorrectly positioning two lines of data, I have simply tabulated data from two primary sources. I have cross checked these sources against other primary sources and so far, the correlation is very good.



This was sort of a test to see what sort of response presenting some data from primary sources would elicit from the board. I am not going to say a lot more other than when dealing with primary data, one needs to be very careful what you are really looking at. I also believe that in looking at Luftwaffe production data, you must recognize the difference between Neubau, Umbau and Reparatuer. Also prototypes and in some instances null series apparently are not included in totals. Finally, there are a number of reasons some of the numbers may be off, if you can’t figure out how small variances could occur for yourself, then I’m not going to waste my time helping you. The table was a project done during free time when I couldn’t be doing much else, I really don’t give a __ about Bf 109s.



Best regards,



Artie Bob

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Hello Artie Bob,

my sources are the original monthly calculation reports from Erla to the "Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe" in Berlin W8, Leipziger Str.7, from 01/44 - 04/45. So the line of G-14/AS was the following: August - 28, September - 95, October - 9, November - 3. This number is crosschecked for example by the original "Lieferung Bf 109 nach Plan 227 laut Besprechung mit F2 am 4.12.44 u.6.12.44" from 6.12.44 where in the column "Lieferung bis 30.11.44" is written "135". So the point can be that the RLM taked over 107 a/c but Erla delivered for sure 135 a/c.

And regarding the K's the statements of your documents are "old" for sure - source: "secret information number 86" from 25.January 1944 regarding "RLM Lieferplan 225/1 vom 1.12.43, Besprechung der Arbeitsgruppe 109 am 21.1. in Regensburg". The same with the G-5/R2 - source: "Programm vom 19.7.44" from 25.7.44 with the addition "(diese Fz werden bei Erla Antwerpen auf G-5/R-2 umgerüstet. AS-Motoren werden aus Serienbeständen von Werk I entnommen.)" A lot of this G-5/R2/AS were found in Antwerpen on September 03 (or 04?),1944, W.Nr.'s are known. So the text "scheduled not built" cannot be right.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Hello Artie Bob,

My reply - and I believe others' too - was not directed against you, by any means. It merely added new information/corrections, and thus updated your list drawn from primary sources.

Perhaps, I should have included a thank-you for your kind effort to post primary material here. The fact that I forgot to do it is solely due to the fast pace we are all living, which often means cutting corners.

On a positive side, your post generated a lively debate on a concrete issue, which is more than welcome here. Eventually, we all will hopefully learn from this thread.

Thank you, again, for your time and effort. I certainly hope more similar posts will follow.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Off topic: If you look at the reports on the initial development of the 109K, you will see that it was simply meant to be a more streamlined 109G, still with the DB 605A, and usually equipped with GM-1. And, production was to begin in Jan '44. I guess that the developmental test results of the DB 605AS, as well as of the DB 605G (later DB 605AM) must have changed enough minds that the initial 109K was not proceeded with. At first the new additions to the 605A engine were used individually. The DB 605AS with its 603 supercharger, was installed into already built 109Gs, starting in early 1944, as Umbaus, to create a better high-level fighter. Then the DB 605AM was installed to create the 109G14 and a better low-level fighter. And finally, the 603 supercharger and methanol injection were combined in the DB 605D to be installed in the new 109K (as well as the 109G10), to create a more capable low-, medium-, and high-level fighter.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Rasmussen-“In January 1944 nobody spoke about the K - 2 but the K-2/R3”



You are possibly correct in saying “nobody” spoke about the K-2 in January, but in April, May and June of 1944, The K 2 and K 4 were included, both in the Lieferplan program 225 vom 12.1.43 as well as the modified plan(m.Vorl. bzw Rückst.) in these documents, the K 3/R2 also appears twice, but not the K 2/ R3. Are you certain you have not transposed the numerals? In all of the various production data I have seen for Bf 109 Neubau subtypes, NONE mentions the R3 modification. The K3/R2 would have been a AHöRei which would parallel the G 5/R2 and IMHO seems to make more sense.



Rasmussen-“And regarding the K's the statements of your documents are "old" for sure source-"secret information number 86” from 25.January 1944…”



You are certainly incorrect in saying my information is “old”, the documents I have referenced appear to be published less than 30 days after each month’s end. C-amts data published in April, May and June 1944 is certainly more up to date for March, April and May than the January document you have referenced.



Rasmussen-“The same with the G-5/R2 - source: "Programm vom 19.7.44" from 25.7.44 with the addition "(diese Fz werden bei Erla Antwerpen auf G-5/R-2 umgerüstet. AS-Motoren werden aus Serienbeständen von Werk I entnommen.)" A lot of this G-5/R2/AS were found in Antwerpen on September 03 (or 04?),1944, W.Nr.'s are known. So the text "scheduled not built" cannot be right. “



First, do you understand the meaning of Neubau? These are aircraft accepted immediately off the production line as the subtype noted. Once accepted, if the aircraft was modified, it then entered the “Umbau” category. Your example concerning the G 5/R2 states you are apparently not cognizant of that. “diese Fz werden bei Erla Antwerpen auf G-5/R-2 umgerüstet.” Antwerp was an Erla repair and modification center, not a Neubau production facility, so it is highly probable that G 5/R2 aircraft found there would have been “Umbau” Also, to me, “umgerüstet”, would also indicate that what I have just indicated is correct.



I am not certain if you have a good command of English or German, possibly both. But to indicate the data that is contained on the documents referenced is wrong indicates to me that either you do not understand what is being said or that I am lying about the content. First, I confirm that the content is as I have presented, less typo errors, correct. I believe John Beaman has a copy made from the C-AMT material I obtained from NARA, College Park and he should be able to confirm the data I have presented as being a true and accurate abstracting of the contents.



As I said earlier, this item was really a test, it seems to me that most of the initial comments were negative. Even when I explained in greater detail, attempts trying to “prove” that this data was “old” or “wrong” continued.. What crap! The data is simply the data, and other than my typos, it is what the RLM published in 1944 and 1945 and as such is probably no more prone to error than the data that originated from the Erla factory or any other WWII German aviation documents. Remember, you have two organizations looking at the same situation from different POVs. Also, trying to parse Luftwaffe information to high precision is most of the time probably misleading, the data is just not that accurate.



Best regards,



Artie Bob

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

I can confirm what ArtiBob says about these documents as I have copies. As he says, the data was posted about 30 days after the end of each month and corrections to previous totals were made along the way. It was very current.

What is also interesting is to note that the documents and formating change along the way, in effect, evolving to fit the needs of the reports. They were also done on different typewriters along the way.

I think it was quite generous of ArtieBob to take the time to make the table and post it even though a couple of lines were mis-formated. It takes time to work though such documents and compile such a table.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

I agree completely with John's assessment of Art's efforts.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Thank you Artie Bob for taking the effort to post this info in the first place and again for taking the time to explain it. I for one appreciate it.
Thanks,
Walt

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

to 1.)
Yes, I'm sure that I didn't transposed the numerals. Here the original text of the January - document:

"Die 1160 Fz Bf 109K-2 werden als K-2/R-3 ausgeliefert. Grund: Bauunterlagen für K-2 sind grundsätzlich auf Einbau des Motors DB 605D abgestellt. Da aber bei Erla noch DB 605A - Motoren einzubauen sind, kommt für Erla nur die Baureihe K-2/R-3 in Frage."

And the writer of this document didn't transposed the numerals because in the same document is another point the description of the change between the K-3/R-2 and K-1/R-2. So he knew what he wrote :-).

to 2.)
I don't understand why an answer here in TOCH not confirmed the own position is an personal attack (see the Emmerling/Grabowski discussion). I'd never say YOUR informations are old or you are an liar I said that the informations used by RLM are "old" or "wrong" or "incomplete". Maybe my English isn't the best and often I'm searching for the right word without the chance to find it (like in this posting too) but my German is one of the best - I'm a native speaker :-).

So I repeat it again - many of the numbers used in this documents are NOT confirmed by Erla calculation reports to the RLM.
And you can be sure I can prove this statement W.Nr. by W.Nr. and BAL date by BAL date for most of the reported numbers.
2 example:
a.) July 1944: (let's talk about Neubau G-5 not Neubau G-5/R2)
"your" RLM list --- no G-5, no G-6, no G-14 (nothing ??)
Erla report --- 8 G-5, 71 G-6 , 186 G-14 (most of them were G-6MW 50 - in principle G-14)
from reasons of time only the G-5:
W.Nr. 110 519 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 520 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 551 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 553 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 554 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 555 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 557 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 559 BAL: July 31, 1944 ---- 8 machines like reported
Now it's possible to say the a/c' s were accounted for August but there you can't find numbers in "your" RLM list and another number in the Erla reports (again confirmed by W.Nr. and so on). September machines G-5 are not reported by BAL Erla.

b.) March 1945:
"your" RLM list --- 4 G-10
Erla Report --- 5 G-10
and here the numbers:
W.Nr. 491 400 BAL: March 30, 1945
W.Nr. 491 474 BAL: March 16, 1945
W.Nr. 491 495 BAL: March 08, 1945
W.Nr. 491 496 BAL: March 07, 1945
W.Nr. 491 506 BAL: March 01, 1945 ---- 5 machines and not 4 like the RLM list stated

That's the reason why I stated these numbers are "wrong" or "incomplete" --- in all probality would be "different" the best word. I know the small differences reported in pilot logs and this official dates (in most of the cases not more then one day) but the official date was the day where the a/c was takenover and the day where booked out (insurance, render accaunt and so on).

I don't know the reasons for this differences. So I would be happy to learn more if someone had an explaination (but without personal attacks like in another thread).

Best wishes
Rasmussen

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Lets not spoil an interesting thread, I think we are all enthusiatic about the content.

Thanks Artie!

Personally the high K-2 numbers come as a surprise, almost as high as K-4 production.

OTOH it is good to see the same month gap between production of the K-2/4 and G-10 "bastard" aircraft, although that single september G-10 spoils the party somewhat.

Perhaps I am being silly but I never realized that the ratio between K-2 and -4s was almost 1:1.

Guess I am spending too much time on other theatres of operations!!

:o

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

I'm not certain if you are serious or not, Ruy. But, if you are, please look at Artie's response to my question about the K-2 production line, which was that this was actually G14 production. It appears that there were only ever 1 or 2 K-2s ever built. And, they were a totally different chicken than was the K-4. In fact, I think I made mention of this in an earlier comment.

All the best,
George

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

ah, was afraid I missed something in the thread (poor excuse for a moderator).

Well at least the world is back to what it was before this shock!

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

I have the Flugzeug-Programm Nr. 227 Ausgabe 1 dated 15.12.1944. This give a detailed view of the actual production of new Bf 109s up 30.11.1944 and scheduled deliveries from 01.12.1944. It is broken down on sub-types as well as production facilities. I have added some comments to conversions (Umbau).

If you are interested, send me an e-mail to hafstenb@c2i.net, and I will forward the list to you.
I will not be at home from thursday 15.09.05 to Sunday 18.09.05.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Please forgive me both for intervening this late into this very interesting thread (great thanks to ArtieBob for sharing his valuable info) and also to appear numb, absolutely worse than Ruy (no offense intended, pal ;) )...

My only question is that, while I understand perfectly about the row on Mtt G-14/AS to be shifted above, I don't see any other line ending with the total value of "107", so where are such data?

Further, to avoid misunderstandings and to help numb people like me, could Artie modify and correct his own table (no need to make a new post, suffice only to replace the file to be downloaded) according to his statements above?

Sorry to ask, but I would really prefer the author to compile his own corrections*, instead of a "do it yourself" job...

Thanks again for the data and the informative discussion.

* also, a footnote about K-2s being G-14s instead would be useful to avoid misunderstandings, especially if this list will start to circulate in the net...IMHO

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Veltro,

Must admit that I had the same question, since somehow shifting the row didn't solve the problem.

Artie,

If you have used Excel or another format, please attach the original file-type, that way you will be certain that we will see what you intended us to see.

This continuous to be a learning experience for all of us, so I hope you won't feel offended by my comments!!

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Sorry, I was in a hospital Tue/Wed and have been out of the loop. Comments are absolutely pertinent, I have already corrected the table. Since I was technologically challenged in posting the original attachment, can someone confirm whether I can replace the original attachment with the corrected table (which is to me the best solution and the errors will no be floating around the ether) or will I have to add it as a new entry? If the latter is the case, once posted, could the moderator delete the original attachment?


Best regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

First Artie, I really hope all is well with you and your loved ones.

As for the file.

Easiest way would be for you to delete the original attachement and post the corrected file.

If my help is needed, just holler.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Third try,

This copy of the attachment has all the typo errors corrected that I could find, the first has already been mentioned the data did not line up with the correct heading for the G 14 AS Mttr., etc. I also found one missing piece of data for Erla G-6s in Jul 44. Hopefully, this will be all the corrections. Not to excuse my typos, but this was extracted from 70 pages of data with about 20,000 fields. It all begins to run together after a while.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Now it makes a lot more sense to me! Thanks Artie for taking the time to post the corrected version and let me wish all the best to you, in case your hospital stay isn't connected with your job... http://www.269ga.it/forum/images/smiles/thumbsup.gif

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

:whoa: Thankx for the effort Arti.
But, regarding K4 - 570000 – 571000 batch, from memory, somewhere i saw these come from Erla factory, im right?. Or those numbers come from K2/3 non builded.


Ballenato

Erla K-4s
 

First, please note the caveats included in my reply on 12 Sept .”The bold numbers represent data that was not specific as to location. In some cases this seems pretty clear as no plant other than WNF built G 8 /R5s. Others are possibly split between more than one location. The overall subtype totals should not change.” “….. the split by plant could be off for Dec 44 , Feb and Mar 45. I had to make a choice of how to present the data, this was my compromise.” In particular, the K-4 production split for Feb and Mar could be off. However, please note the following comments. The first mention of Erla K-4 production block 570000 to 5701000 that I am aware of is Prien and Rodeike’s book. They indicate they were only able to confirm one specific W.Nr., 570362, in that block with BAL acceptance on Feb 16,1945. Because of the “staggered” sequencing of RLM W.Nrs. late in the war, this could be the first K-4 accepted in that block (or not). More documentation is needed, knowing the Stammkennzeichen is helpful, as these generally follow in sequence.



If anyone can confirm any additional W.Nr.s in the 570xxx block, I would be interested.



Best regards,



Artie Bob

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Artie,
as I discovered the month totals don't correspond with numbers in table for july 44 through feb 45. Is it mistake?

BR
Dmitry

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

I will never again post a spreadsheet done in Excel converted to Word. As you are probably aware in excel the totals change automatically with updating of numeric data. When I could not get the Excel table to upload, I converted it to Word and there is where most of my problems started. After correcting the misalignment problem , I manually corrected (I hope) all the subtype totals, but forgot to correct the monthly totals. I did have a crossfoot check field and this actually read OK, so no bells rang. right now, I am not inclined to post a third version of the table, unless there are any futher errors in data. Thanks for pointing out the problem.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Artie,

I was wondering why you hadn't posted an Excel sheet in the first place, now I know. I'll make sure that that is solved so you can post the original.

By the time my colleagues at work are done I have at least half a dozen revisions in my mailbox, I am sure this happens to most of us!

Thanks for all your hard work Artie Bob.

EDIT:
I have changed the allowed file extension setup you can now upload an Excel (or Word) file upward to 500k size. Larger files cannot be accepted since this server limits its users to 512k packages for MySQL upload (the silly bxxxxxs).

Sorry that the previous setup caused you so much extra work. We keep learning on the go.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Imformative thread - thanks ArtieBob. If somene kind sole can clairify the following for me I have another peice of the puzzle fall into place!

AB said:

1) Neubau = aircraft accepted immediately off the production line
2) Umbau = aircraft was modified
3) Reparatuer = ?

1) accepted by BAL? If so what is\was BAL
2) modified - does this mean that a factory conversion was completed (Umrust-Bausatze? Additionally is it not considered accepted until the modification was completed and then inspected?)
3) google translation = ???

Regards and sorry for what some of you will consider basic questions.

John

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

Typing error -> Reparatur

It means in english -> fixing

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

BAL = Luftwaffe`s quality control group. Basically, they rejected planes that did not meet specs.

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

BAL is the acronym for Bauaufsicht Luft, which means air construction supervision. This was an RLM organization which had personnel stationed at the manufacturer’s plants and in addition to the inspection and approval for delivery of aircraft, might also be involved in obtaining the supply of critical materials or even becoming directly involved in the company’s production methods. IIRC, all the main serial plates I have seen for RLM aircraft had a BAL stamp indicating acceptance.

Umbau translates literally as conversion or reconstruction. The use by the RLM during WWII production refers specifically to conversions not done on the Neubau (new build) production line. The aircraft could actually have a designation indicating “Umbau”, such as a Bf 109 G-6/U4, and be listed as a neubau aircraft if the work was done as part of the new construction process. It appears that if the conversion was done after leaving the assembly plant, then the aircraft would be considered “Umbau”. A good example is the Bf 109 G-5/R2 referred to by Rasmussen in his message of on 12 Sep 05 . These Bf 109 G-5 aircraft were apparently converted to the Bf 109 G5/R2 subtype at the Erla Antwerp repair and modification facility (no new build final assembly was done at this facility during 1944) and 34 Bf 109 Aufklarer from Erla A (Antwerp) appear in the monthly reports for Umbau aircraft for July 1944. These may have been “new” aircraft, with only test flight and ferry time from the Erla final assembly plant at Leipzig to Antwerp, but Umbau is how they were identified by the RLM.

Reparatur is pretty simple ( Yes, I misspelled it earlier), meaning repairs. The RLM meaning was apparently for repair done after acceptance, away from the final assembly point. The basic concept was that production lines should be focused purely on getting new aircraft out the door and modification and repair would be done at facilities which specialized in those activities. Another term used by the RLM was, Instandsetzung, which means repair but also can mean renovate or in USA terms, overhaul.

If you want to get serious about Luftwaffe history, you really must learn to read German and have a good German-English dictionary close at hand. It helps to have a person born in Germany living across the street. Otherwise, you will only be able to read what is available in English and you will be missing a great amount of the best material that is available. Also some of the English versions leave out some of the appendices, etc. that were in the original language editions.

Best regards

Artie Bob

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

WOW :shock:

Thanks for the rapid answers - and a special thanks to ArtieBob for the full explanation. I will take your advice about the good German - English dictionary since Google only seems to give you a very general idea or gets it wrong.

@ ArtieBob - Can you provide more detail on the organizational structure of the BAL and the inspectors. Were the inspectors Luftwaffe personal (engineers) assigned to the BAL? Additionally is there more information available on the stamp or codes used by the inspectors that may provide additional information about and AC or any ancillary details?

Thanks in advance

Re: Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45
 

ArtieBob,

you show only 1 G-6/AS listed. I have seen that 226 were new built at Mttr in the block 165000 and this at the end of what was suppose to be the time span the G-6/AS were being built/converted.

Are Prien and Rodeike mistaken?