Informations about Bf 109 E WNr.1259 ?

[Falcon]

Originally Posted by ouidjat

2.(H)/14 can't see other possibility.

Oh yes. The style matches with that Emils...

http://www.me109.info/display.php?a=e&fid=632
http://www.me109.info/display.php?a=e&fid=108

[ChrisS]

Yep 2.(H)14, I have 6 other desert emils with this style marking and each has it's WNr under the cockpit (all the others are illegible). Also several Bf-109F's.

[John Beaman]

Here's what the records say. No E-9. Seems a short time for an 80% to come back into service. Maybe a mis-ID?

Bf109E-7, 1259, MARSEILLE, Ofhr. Hans-Joachim I./ 3.//JG 27, gelbe13 + (?),
20-Apr-41, Notlandung due to engine damage., X.Fl.Korps/Afrika, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #3)-Vol.4; Prien, et al, Die Jagdfliegerverbände, V, p.374; Prien/Rodeike/Stemmer, Stab & I./JG 27, p.540; Scutts, Bf 109 Aces of NA & the Med, p.28
bei Cahela, 80%


Bf 109E-7, 1259, n.n., JGr.West,14-May-43, Notlandung due to engine trouble., Lfl.3/, FR, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #10)-Vol.17, Pauillac, 60%

[ouidjat]

Originally Posted by John Beaman

... Seems a short time for an 80% to come back into service...

What do you mean John? Between when and when? Can you detail your thoughts please?

Regards, Franck.

[John Beaman]

Franck,

what I mean is that for an 80% damaged airframe, I am surprised it was not written off. But if that damage estimate is correct, then there must have been extensive damage to the airframe, not just landing gear etc. I would guess that a major rebuild might have been in order, not just repairs by a depot, some where. It was in the second loss in a training unit, which means it was flying in less than two years. so that time frame seems a short time for such extensive repairs, but since I know little about wartime German aircraft repair proceedures, perhaps I am wrong.

[ouidjat]

John,

me either ... But less than two years left time enough I think.
Talking about short time frame I thought you're refering about the time left between Marseille's accident and that David's picture we can suppose taken in 1942.

Even though we have "seen" shorter times with same damage elsewhere ...

We can suppose she got the WNr. Under canopy when in major repair shop.

Regards, Franck.

PS: But whatever, there is something wrong in that 80%.

[Stig Jarlevik]

David

How fixed is the WNr 1259? It is not possible to verify on the photo you have sent. Do you have a better copy?

It seems awkward to say the least to have the aircraft damaged 80% with JG 27 and be back in service with 2.(H)./14 in 1942. 80% damage was basically only small spare parts use only. Possibly the 80% is faulty....

Cheers
Stig