Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates

[harrison987]

Hi Fernanado and Rasmussen!

From what I have always understood, the very early G-10's had the DB605AS, not the 605D.

Went back to Prien-Rodeike's book (forgot it was in there), and clearly it has the 605AS.

G-10's made by Erla began in Sept. 1944. As they were using EXISTING G-14/AS airframes, it is probable that the early G-10 had the quarter moon panel bulge as the AS did (and not the re-designed straight panel).

I have not seen any documentation or rerearch that dis-proves the early G-10's as having the 605AS. From what I understand the 490000 and 491000 production blocks (1400 aircraft) had the AS. When it comes to production, it would take some time to impliment changes. The square panel was designed with the 605D in mind...and it is very liekly many of the early G-10's carried the usual 605AS curved bulge (as opposed to the square one later implimented).

If you think in terms of production, the G-14/AS airframes were already built...already with curved AS engine bulges. The square panel was re-designed for the 605D. If they were installing an AS on a G-10, they would have no need to install the square panel. Simply add the 605AS and off you go! It would be a waste of production time and costs to remove curved panels from already-build G-14/AS airframes to install a square panel...especially if it made no difference with the 605AS engine installation. Of course, even if they were installing a 605D, it would have made no difference either.

The problem is the dates and the werk number...things written down/recorded wrong, etc. W.Nr.490642 would not make too much sense either...I think that would have been aircraft 1400, and it would have been impossible for ERLA to build 1400 aircraft in 6 weeks (apparantly when the photo was taken - October?).

Do we know 100% when the pic was taken? Do we know 100% on the werk number?

Those are the questions that need to be answered...as an early G-10 could easily have all the features that "Rita" exhibits.

It is a very intersting subject...new information always shows up...theories dis-proven or proven.

But...I would really like to stick with the original thread topic as we are all getting farther from the reason I posted this topic - The reason for the 2nd plate on the G-10 (and I guess now the G-14, too)...