Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates

[stephen f. polyak]

Here's what I believe the second plate looked like (note: there was more than one version/style of this type of multi-entry box plate):

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.p...2a3lmh&thumb=4

I believe the word "änderungsstufe" roughly translates to "changes". Is that correct?

[harrison987]

Hi Stephen,

Yes, that is correct! The spaces were for dates from what I understand...

mike

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by stephen f. polyak

I believe the word "änderungsstufe" roughly translates to "changes". Is that correct?

It means a little more, I think. It means "alteration level/stage" and I have an example of an Fw 190 "Receiving "alteration 137" which I would guess was a modification specified for all aircraft of a given model (or performing a given role).

[harrison987]

HI Tomislav!

Question...

"The Änderungsstufe plate was added to indicate subsequent changes that might appear during the operational use of the aircraft"

Only dates were added into this spot, as shown on the G-10 here in the USA...so if it was intended to indicate changes, why only show a date? Seems reduntant, unless the chnages were indicated as well. Also, why were these plate not found on all G-10's? and why ONLY G-10's?

Seems odd, no?

[Grzegorz Cisek]

I looked into Messerschmitt JaPo Bf 109G-10/U4 (page 9). Here is an explanation of this second plate used on G-10 version. The word “Anderungsstufe” means exactly “level of changes”. This plate pointed to the dates of changes made during production period. To put in other words it meant that all by date actual modifications had been done. This explanation sounds reasonable.
But I can’t still believe that all defected or damaged aircraft were repaired to their original version. It would be nonsense. Moreover it would be very often impossible to do because parts which would be necessary to repair a particular plane might have been inaccessible. Certainly all repaired planes have been upgraded to new versions. I can’t imagine that the old G-6 and G-14 parts in such a country like Germany were simply recycled. I don’t believe that all G-10 planes were completely new and the factories used to their production new parts only. Good example of that is “yellow 11” (Gigi) from II./JG 52. It is evidently a mixture of G-6 and G-10. Such a mixture had to be done in a factory only and not in any case as a field modification.

[harrison987]

Hi Grzegorz,

I am familiar with the JaPo book...

ALL G-10's were made new, not from damaged, repaired, or older airframes. Also, not all damaged or defective 109's were repaired, nor were they upgraded to new versions. There were repair facilities...however the level or repair was most likely only enough to get it in the air.

DIANA had a repair facility, but those were only for airframes which were damaged while still in the hands of the manufacturer...such as problems during test flight, US attack on trains while in transport, etc.

Older G6 and G-14 airframes were not recycled into newer aircraft.

"Yellow 11" is the only example with evidence of an older tail new tail, and as all G-10's were made new, it was concluded that the modification done was most likely to get it into the air to the Neubiberg to surrender to the US and escape the Russians.

Field modification did include tail replacement, and repairs like that have been known to happen in the field quite regularly. If you have a damaged tail on an otherwise airworthy airplane, you install a good tail from an unairworthy aircraft. The tail attaches with 6 bolts if I remember correctly...so it is a very easy installation.

[Angantyr]

Good evening!

Hate to be a know-it-all, but the aircraft you are reffering to is in fact a Bf 109G-14/AS of the werke Nr block 512xxx according to JAPOs book, as there seemed to be a stock of the earlier tail assembly previously used on regular G-14s, and these were assembled as G-14/AS, however this combination was extremely rare, and I have only seen two photos of this configuration.

Best wishes!

Angantyr

[harrison987]

Hi,

Thanks you for your input...

As I mentioned, there is most likely a werk number discrepancy/date with that aircraft, and also mis-information. Also, from what I remember, there were 2 G-14's named Rita...but I am not 100% sure.

I would ask that we pleeeeeaaaaaaaaassssssssssseeeee get off this discussion of the G-14. This thread is about the reason for the second data plate, and we are getting WAY off topic.



Thanks!

Mike

[Tomislav Haramincic]

Originally Posted by harrison987

Question...

"The Änderungsstufe plate was added to indicate subsequent changes that might appear during the operational use of the aircraft"

Only dates were added into this spot, as shown on the G-10 here in the USA...so if it was intended to indicate changes, why only show a date? Seems reduntant, unless the chnages were indicated as well. Also, why were these plate not found on all G-10's? and why ONLY G-10's?

Hi Mike and Grzegorz,

Mike, thats a really good question. If I remember correctly, on the Änderungsstufe plate of WNr.610937 only one field was stamped with the 12.44 date. in the JaPo book the possibility was mentioned that this date could represent the date of production, which in the case of 610937 could be true. I have never seen a plate with two or more fields stamped, so I guess we can't really determine if the fields were only date stamped without the indicated changes or with the changes. An other explanation could be that the 12.44 was the date of the U4 modificaton. On the other hand, all of the WNF produced G-10's were U4's and the modification was already done during production, so IMHO there was actually no need to specially express the date of this modification. I've looked through a few photos and I think that even not all DIANA prodused G-10 had that second plate. It would be nice to know if ERLA produced G-10/R6's had such or similar plates.

[Graham Boak]

Certainly all repaired planes have been upgraded to new versions.

I see no reason for being so dogmatic. AIthough it may not have been possible to restore damaged aircraft to their historic "as delivered" condition, neither would it have been practical to bring all such up to the very latest standards. Whatever the pressure for new aircraft in the frontline, there is an equal demand for airframes in the training and other second-line roles, for which a lower level of performance is required and used/tired airframes would be perfectly acceptable. A G-6 with DB605A would do perfectly well, possibly even releasing new G-10s for the front line.