A factory fresh Me 109G-G14AS

[Marc-André Haldimann]

Originally Posted by Cpt_Farrel

I'm quite convinced that it's not the light, look at the enginecowling, there's no way that it's only a shadow doing that. Also, I think it looks the same on "Yellow 5" in the JaPo book. The well known photo of Yellow 7 from JG300 probably show the same camo too, only that the engine cowling was replaced causing the effect that there's a dark band around the forward part of the nose, which in reality would have been the remains of a "round the cowling" RLM83 or RLM81 camo.

Hi Cpt Farrel,

Well, you can check any amount of late war Me 109's photos, and you will notice more often then not this issue of having a very dark looking lower part of the fuselage, even if the sun position respective to the subject is good. This is quite obvious for the II./JG 52 109's which landed on 8 May 1945 at Neubiberg. IMHO, it has to do with the curvature of the fuselage, probably reinforced in some cases by exhaust stains (which is not the case for the plane we're talking about...).

Thanks for your input

Marc

[Mermet]

Originally Posted by Cpt_Farrel

I'm quite convinced that it's not the light, look at the enginecowling, there's no way that it's only a shadow doing that. Also, I think it looks the same on "Yellow 5" in the JaPo book. The well known photo of Yellow 7 from JG300 probably show the same camo too, only that the engine cowling was replaced causing the effect that there's a dark band around the forward part of the nose, which in reality would have been the remains of a "round the cowling" RLM83 or RLM81 camo.

Veltro: Thanks for the decal theory by the way, that would explain my last problem with my own theory...

I desagree with you, but cordially : At the end of the war the markings applied on JG 300's planes included a black band around the tip of their noses. That xas the same regulation for their Fw such as Fw 190A-8/R8 "schwarze 4 + - of II./JG 300.

Cheers,
Jicehem

[Marc-André Haldimann]

Hi RolandF,

thanks for this excellent background information. It gives a precise explanation as to why a Me 109G-10 in such excellent condition was found there back in May 1945. It is thus a real possibility that this plane actually never flew, thus giving an excellent explanation for its pristine state.

One question though: did the Vilseck factory also produce 109G-10's?.

And on the lighter side, any Messerschmitt wing profile fences around nowadays?

Thanks for sharing your knowledge

Marc

[Cpt_Farrel]

Marc: while I aggree with you when it comes to the rear part of the fuselage, I still think that the forward part, in front of the wings, must have had the color taken all the way around. Maybe the lower part of the rear section was left in natural metal though, which also would look very dark given the conditions you describe... I'm updating my profile templates now and I hope that I can present some profiles soon, showing my ideas.

[Marc-André Haldimann]

Cpt Farrel: OK, ready any time to see your point!

cheers

Marc

[Kuba Plewka]

Roland, your information is excellent, but as far as I recognise - Amberg, Vilseck etc was connected to Mtt. Regensburg production and our G-10/R6 was n Erla-Leipzig built one.
Was there at Vilseck a repair or conversion centre? Did they repair a G-10 or a 109 at all?

That aircraft is preety clean, no exhaust staining, no oli leaks.
Perhaps it was a well maintained one?
When you look to the Bedienungsvorschrift – Fl Bf 109 G-6 part “Reinigen des Flugzeuges” (operating instruction) you may see that cleaning its surfaces is necessary for looking for damages and cracks. Maybe our G-10 was in really good condition, not as filthy as others were?

[Marc-André Haldimann]

Dear Kuba,

Maybe it is a G-14/AS, after all :-)

As for maintenance issue at this stage of war, one would doubt such an exceptionnal effort; besides, this plane has no unit markings; IMHO, I would not bet it did ever fly...

Cheers

Marc

[Kuba Plewka]

Marc, this would be an extremally difficult to proof.
You see, the oil tank is bigger, the cooler is shallow and no chin bulges. The panel under the windscreen is square and the crosses on fuselage are smaller.
The mainwheel are bigger and the tailwheel is lower.
The camouflage is characteristic too to those to be surely G-10 from 151/152 bathes.

The G-14/AS built by Erla I know of were just preety different in both shape and presence.

With the maintance - I do have a look for a large collection of photos from Neubiberg. Those Gustavs are so different in apperance, some are filthy, some are almost clean.
The same with more photos of abandoned / damaged ones from german abandoned airfields.

I'll go with a G-10/R6 rather well maintained or well cleaned after all.

[Marc-André Haldimann]

Kuba,

- Agreed for the low tailwheel, shallow cooler, bigger oil tank, flat panel Erla-style.
- Unsure about bigger mainwheel, no wing bulges to be seen.

I wonder if you could post a pic (or a link to) from an Erla produced 109G-14/AS, and one from Mtt Vilseck?

As for clean versus filthy, well, everything is possible. But the lack of unit markings is a fact pointing to a brand new plane, isn'it?

Cheers

Marc

[Kuba Plewka]

Originally Posted by Marc-André Haldimann

Kuba,

I wonder if you could post a pic (or a link to) from an Erla produced 109G-14/AS, and one from Mtt Vilseck?

Well, see the "Rita" red 2 of a 2./JG 300 (mistaken as G-10, I did it too) and see a "Peterle" black 13 of a 14./JG 4.
Those are preety well known ones, you'll find those pictures in Mr. Prien / Rodeike book for example.

The lack of unit markings does not proof a fabric new one. I'd rather say this is a consequence of chaos, rubbish and a lack of time.
Or as well this one G-10 was photographed on hand-over airfield?