Official difference between the G-10 and K-4 windscreen??

[harrison987]

Differences between the G-10 and K-4 Windscreen...

Okay G-10 WNr. 610937 has the very late style K-4 Frontage as seen in the photo below. It looks like a conversion from the G style, as you can see all the welding look like it was done in the field.

On the G, normally this entire aluminum structure was made from one piece of aluminum as seen in the second photo.









I cannot seem to find many pics of the G-10 with the upper cowling removed to reveal this area of the windscreen.

My question is...as the G-10's were older G's converted to K standard, would this upgrade have been done quite regularly?

Reason why I ask is I am repairing the G screen in the second photo to G-10 standard, and wondering if it would be more correct to keep it as the older G style, or upgraded K like in the first pic.

I am building a cockpit section to replicate the G-10 W.Nr. 611943 at Planes of Fame, and have no photos of that area (they also do not reply to emails).

Does anyone have any info they can help with?

[veltro]

Originally Posted by harrison987

My question is...as the G-10's were older G's converted to K standard, would this upgrade have been done quite regularly?

Sorry to be unable to help on the specific questions, but I thought it worth to underline that the informations you're working from looks quite outdated. As proved by later researches (ask for instance to Carl Charles or Jörg Meincke) and by the production documents (especially those by Erla) it is now clear beyond doubt that the G-10s weren't at all "older G-s converted to K standard", but brand new aircraft of brand-new construction. Just for the sake of precision.

[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

[ArtieBob]

If one believes the C-AMT monthly reports, ALL of the G-10s coming from Messerschmitt, Erla, etc. were Neubau. As often, the devil was in the details. IMHO, I believe the drastic production changes instituted during the summer of 1944 had much to do with some of the apparent anomalies. The time between first metal being cut and BAL acceptance of an aircraft was probably months, not weeks. Also, the final assembly subtypes probably were driven by engine availability. Thus a fuselage that may have started in the cycle in 1943 might not fly away until well into 1944. I have seen photos of rows of new 109 fuselages sitting in open fields. A new airplane may have been assembled from new components that for various reasons had been in the production inventory for an extended period, such components may have been modified along the way, even to the point of having W.Nr. or subtypes changed. As for going from photos, unless one knows the history of the specific airframe, drawing generalized conclusions may be fallacious as IIRC, there literally dozens of sites that were involved in Bf 109 Umbau and repair. In the last year of the war with the emphasis on numbers of aircraft sent out the door, I suspect there were many "unofficial" Bf 109 configurations flying , i.e. not in accordance with Messerschmitt "production standard". Just my take, of course I do not pretend to be an expert in this matter.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

[harrison987]

Sorry Fernando,

G-10 were NOT a brand-new aircraft of brand new construction.

G-10 production began in Oct 1944 to August 1945, with approx. 6000 airframes built at factory, but again, these were airframes already built as G airframes, and then converted. The object was, through a parallel conversion process, to suppliment the new K-4 with repaired aircraft (G-14 and G-6's) of almost equal value in the cheapest manner possible. The K-4 was produced from July 44 to March 46, so there was really no point to start making downgraded aircraft alongside the K-4 at the same factory. All G-10's were repaired airframes, which were converted at factory or field.

There was 1 Handbook and 1 Manual made for every aircraft built. I have been through all the archives at EADS (formerly Messerschmitt AG), and NO G-10 manual, handbook or blueprints exist. I also have been thorugh a private collection (bigger than the Messerschmitt Foundation) with the same results. However, I have found many original Me262 and Me109K-4 Handbooks and manuals, both of which were made much less in number than the G-10.

The G-10's have a HUGE amount of differences, that are not consistant with a series production of a NEW airframe. Some have large tail with short tailwheel, late style hood or early hood, DB605D or DB605A, larger tires, older wing...and a combination of all of these or one of these. Also, most G-10's had the ORIGINAL Data tag of a G-6 or G-14 in addition to the upgraded data tag...clearly showing the upgrade from G.



Mike

[Charles Bavarois]

Hello Mike,

let me join in and add a few remarks:

Quote:
"G-10 were NOT a brand-new aircraft of brand new construction.
G-10 production began in Oct 1944 to August 1945, with approx. 6000 airframes built at factory, but again, these were airframes already built as G airframes, and then converted".

This statement is somewhat puzzling. All three manufacturers of late war Messerschmitt Bf 109s were the subject of a thoroughly research: Peter Schmolls works on Messerschmitt-Regensburg and Klaus Haberfellners' on Wiener-Neustädter-Werke are already published. Jörg Meinckes (aka Rasmussen) comprehensively research on Erla-Leipzig hopefully will emerge at the (near?) future. I myself did a little research on my own and with the kind support of Jörg and Peter am quite familiar with Messerschmitt-production in late-war Germany.

To my knowledge none of the mentioned producers of Bf 109s was involved in recycling older airframes in late 1944/45 (no "Umbau", "Umrüstung" or "Reparatur"). The production facilities and the work-flow of MTT-Regensburg, WNF and Erla-Leipzig are known in detail and there is no indication for any kind of recycling. On the other hand, all known Werknummern for G-10 a/c can easily be connected to these three producers.

This leads me to the conclusion, that the G-10 was a batch of regular newly-built aircraft, no room for recycling. I vaguely remember, that a very few G-10s from Erla-Leipzig were originally G-14s brought to G-10 standard before they left the factory (so no recycling!). Perhaps Rasmussen can help us.

This is the recent state of my knowledge. If you have information on a recycling process in 1944/45, I would be delighted, if you share your sources with us. This would alter the picture of Luftwaffe late war supply considerably.

Carl

[ArtieBob]

Mike,

I am not certain about those Bf 109s you note produced between April and August 1945, as they are a real surprise to me, but G-10s between September and March were listed as Neubau, if you understand what that means. As noted, the production inventory cycle lasted for months, components (not aircraft). Final assembly of Neubau G-10s came from factories, not factory as MttR, ErlaD and WNF are listed. This all comes from primary documentation through March 1945, it gets a bit iffy after that. I thought my explanation of the RLM documentation and production cycle were fairly clear with caveats as needed, but apparently not. But then, I do not claim to be an expert, however, if you already knew all the answers why ask the questionS?

Best Regards,

Fernando (aka Artie Bob)

[Eric Larger]

I think you should have a look to JaPo's book (Ales Janda and Tomas Poruba) on Bf109G-10/U4 , the whole production process for WNF and its factory Diana in Czech Rep is detailled .

I am not specialized in that aircraft , so one could correct me but the "raison d'être" , od Bf 109G-10 is to have currently produced Bf109G airframes with a powelfull engine (DB605D) . There are too many differences between Bf 109K and Bf109G . So not to have to tool new pieces the Bf 109K engine was adapted to a 'standard' Bf 109G airframe .

Each manufacturer manage it is different ways, there were Erla solution, (a square plate on port side) , Mtt one , and WNF/Dianan one .

But I can say that these machines were newly produced ones , no recycling . The repair / recycling process is completelly different . It could be done at factory level but on different lines , or in other specialized centres.

Eric

[Franek Grabowski]

I think the problem lies with misunderstanding what the conversion is. It is now commonly assumed that Me 109G-10 was based on stocks ammased during production of earlier G subvariants. Thus various unused assemblies like fuselages, wings, tails, canopies were put together depending on their availability. This explains so many combinations of parts visible on new built aircraft. Also, some parts must have been modified, those including fuselages. Nonetheless I would hardly call a new built G-6 fuselage converted on assembly line to G-10 status, an old, worn part.
Apart of this discussion, I would like to note that the windscreen in question is a unique piece of history in itself and should not be converted as it will be a falsification. Carefully repaired with as much original bits as possible it would be undistinguishable for most of the viewers.

[veltro]

Dear Mike,

you have already been answered above by much more informed and expert people than me on this particular topic. All of them seem to converge on one point: no recycling and no use of old parts was employed in building the G-10. This is what I originally said.

I am sure that Charles, Jörg and others could bring much more detailed info on their statements and help with their huge (and I underline "huge") knowledge of the late Bf 109 series. I only wanted to point out and correct one of those statements that are repeated over and over and that weren't supported so far by any evidence, while proofs of the contrary have been instead found and studied by those researchers above.