[S Sheflin]

Ferdinando,

You said, “it is now clear beyond doubt that the G-10s weren't at all ‘older G-s converted to K standards’ but brand new aircraft of brand-new construction.” Does your statement extend to all G-10s, especially those produced by WNF?

I have long suspected that the Bf 109 G-10s produced by Messerschmitt and Erla were not rebuilds, but were actually newly-produced airframes. These two factories were consistent in producing clean looking G-10s with little or no over painting or other signs of rebuilding.

WNF-built Bf 109 G-10s are usually much rougher looking and give the appearance of being rebuilt G-6 or G-14 fuselages. The G-10s documented at Neubiberg are prime examples of this. While I suppose this could be the result of wear and tear on the planes as they fought their way back to Germany, surely some newly-delivered WNF aircraft should have a fresher appearance. In 1945, II./JG 52 was operating close to the WNF factory, so they probably received replacement aircraft until the bitter end. Also, the few Erla-built Bf 109 G-10s found at Neubiberg were much cleaner looking than the majority of II./JG 52’s WNF-built 109s. Finally, the factory ID tags present on the Neubiberg G-10s that came to the US after the war show that they were rebuilt airframes.

This raises several possibilities: If all G-10s were rebuilds, Messerschmitt and Erla took much more time and precious paint to refinish their older G-6 and G-14 fuselages than did WNF. Or perhaps as you suggest, Messerschmitt and Erla were building ‘new’ G-10s, while WNF was mostly modifying older airframes into G-10s.

I have been out of the loop on some of this research lately. If my questions have already been answered, I apologize in advance.

Steve Sheflin