AEG G.II

[musec04]

Hello,


Currently on ebay is a photo of AEG G.II 8/15 (?)captioned as being with FFA 41,behind the machine are a number of Ago C.I


https://www.ebay.de/itm/375593440540...MAAOSwkYRmvf5d



Regards,


Clint

[musec04]

Hello,


Currently on ebay is a rare photo,not of an AEG G.II,but the AEG G.I 1/15. Or has G.1/15 been misidentified in published sources, and it was in fact a G.II as this machine looks very like a G.II in its early form?


https://www.ebay.de/itm/296628492324...Bk9SR-b9l82zZA



The seller also has other photos of (the same ?) AEG bomber aircraft




https://www.ebay.de/itm/296628487247...UAAOSwMcJmuu9X




https://www.ebay.de/itm/296628509486...gAAOSw2bxmuvUk





Regards,





Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

A tricky question Clint

Since you know all sources says G.1/15 was the AEG G.I, it is hard to refute that.

Could the G.I have been modified to a G.II later in its life? Any fate for the G.I?

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Hi Stig,


Is the Aeronaut volume on AEG one of those you own? If so, I suspect you have as much information on the G.I as myself.Is there something more informative. If so, I 'd definitely like a copy. I think the photo in the Aeronaut book with the machine facing forward is the only one I've seen. So not very helpful.Particularly as the serial is not visible.Now what I do note is that Herris has the K.I and G.I as first and second prototypes,whereas Peter M Grosz has the latter as simply a redesignation of the latter.



The engines on that photo which are said to be 100 hp Benz engines are at a minimum very difficult to tell apart from the 150 hp Benz of the G.II.However,this changes if on looks at the photo of the K.I,where the engines clearly are different. The machine I've linked to on ebay does appear to have the same engines as the G.II. So, yes it could be as you suggest and that the G.I was modified and later received Benz engines. Also, isn't that the armoured nose we see on the photo of G.1/15? ,typical of the G.II.



So I've rambled,but I'm not sure I've really answered anything. There is nothing I guess to say that the G.I can't have been modified. On the other hand as far as I know there is no photo of what is definitely the G.I in a unmodified state and with a serial.So take your pick.Just as an after thought on the sources with regard to the serial. There is a propensity I think to repeat information already published in earlier publications. Is that what we see? Again, I don't know.


Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

Bottom line Clint is we don't know enough (and indeed I have the Aeronaut book).

Since I am no technical guy, (I am happy enough being able to tie my own shoe laces) I am not
able to see subtle differences between, in this case, the K.I, G.I and G.II.
As far as I am concerned the K.I could very well have been converted to the G.I
Even if it was still early in the war, there probably was some kind of restraining order "don't waste
raw material". So when the heavy escort fighter theory died/was rejected I can well imagine the
K.I being converted with an extra seat and perhaps "beefed up" a bit to comply with a new
bomber concept.

Was the G.I again converted to become the G.II? No idea, but again not impossible.
An added armoured nose should be "easy enough" (for some handy men that is) and a change
of engines would not cause anyone to have sleepless nights.

So bottom line for me is that the experts say
a) There was a K.I built
b) There was a G.I built Bestellnummer G1/15
c) There was a production of G.II built.
Everything in between seems to be speculation....

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Hi Stig,


As you're now aware I accept that the photo I linked to is indeed the G.I.


Just a small point it appears that both Peter M Grosz and Michael Schmeelke,the author of an article on AEG in Propellerblatt No.13 state that the G.I arose through redefinition of the K.I. There were not two sperate aircraft built. Possibly this is not what you meant in points a & b, just stating this because as you'll recall from your correct identification of the 'Friedrichshafen FF 6',on a previous occasion the Aeronaut books while useful are not always faultless. Unless of course further knowledge has emerged which would justify Aeronaut's claim of two seperate aircraft.


Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

Yes I am Clint

Interesting that Schmeelke also consider the K.I was modified into the G.I
Makes very much sense.

And if you wonder, no I don't have the Propellerblatt....

Cheers
Stig