Bf 109K Data Plate Location

[bavgan]

Hello,
I actually did not pay attention to its being an Erla built K-4. I am glad that you liked it.

Mike,

Thats the reason I posted the photo. I can not say anything for the glare, but dont you think its position is too low for the data plate?

Batur

[S Sheflin]

RolandF,

I am not certain, but I believe that the darkly colored Bf 109 to which you are referring is the same one I published in color in AIRFOIL #1. Its location, as noted on the sourced USAF color movie, was Frankfurt-Rhein Main. Apparently an Erla-built G-10, this unmarked aircraft featured the square refined cowling return, large wing bumps, a short tail wheel leg, and a Werknummer across its wooden fin and rudder in what I have designated, “Position 3.”

Regarding the shiny metal rectangle below this new K-4’s cockpit, I have documented the positions of Bf 109 factory ID tags in my database, and this one fits in nicely with the vast majority produced by Erla.

Steve Sheflin

[stephen f. polyak]

It's not necessarily too low. In fact, main plates fitted to some 109Es and earlier types were positioned even lower (and also further forward). I doubt pilots and crew even noticed these plates. (Allied soldiers were another matter!) Their location was of no particular consequence. As mentioned above, various positions related to maker and production type/series were used. Now, taking the guessing game further . . . what if main plates on 109Ks were typically over-painted? This would perhaps explain why these plates do not "jump out" of period photos. And going further, what if the plate in this picture was already removed? What would appear there, but lighter, unpainted/primed fuselage skinning. Given the propensity of GIs for souvenir gathering (and the size and apparent leisure of this group), such a grab is not beyond possible. We certainly know that many plates landed in the pockets of the victors.

[RolandF]

Steve,

it was this one - http://www.kecay.com/images/Atelier%...y/Me109/17.jpg - I was referring to. This photo in original is in colour? Most interesting.

Regards

Roland

[stephen f. polyak]

Is it possible to establish that it's the same plane in both photos (W.Nr.)? If it's not the same plane, then it appears to be an identical twin. From what I can see, the photo in the profile book does not reveal a data plate (overpainted or just not there?).

[klemchen]

Hello,

to me the photo is sensational. I had always been told (and until now believed) that there has never been a K-4 by Erla. There is another photo of a K-4 with an Erla cowling on p. 44 in Poruba's and Mol's JaPo book on Me 109 K camouflage and marking. I had taken that aircraft for what it was but thought it must have been the result of exchanging the cowling in the field, which should have been easy apart from adapting the port fuselage bulge to the Erla cowling. Now this odd theory can be abandoned.
I wonder where Steven Sheflin's other K-4 by Erla can be found.

Regards,
klemchen

[Rasmussen]

Originally Posted by klemchen

I wonder where Steven Sheflin's other K-4 by Erla can be found.

Another Erla K-4/R6 is documented with BAL acceptance flight from February 16, 1945. It was the W.Nr. 570 362. I gave Mr. Prien this information in the beginning of the 90's and he used it for his publication to the Bf 109F-K.

Originally Posted by veltro

And it shows that apparently Erla-built K-4s had the same rectangular panel (and eventually no chin bulges and differently machined upper and lower engine cowl) than on their peculiar G-10s...!

Yes, the Erla K-4/R6 had the same engine cowling like the Erla G-10 (without the chin bulges). It seems it was the planned style for all K-4's but Erla got the tools alone.

Interesting too that mmoustaf mentioned the picture in his posting from December 12, 2008 .... unfortunately in the wrong forum - the allied forum.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

[harrison987]

question...

You are mentioning that Elra built K-4's did not have Chin Bulges...if this is true, how did they bypass the extra space for the return oil lines on the 605D engine?

[veltro]

Originally Posted by harrison987

question...

You are mentioning that Elra built K-4's did not have Chin Bulges...if this is true, how did they bypass the extra space for the return oil lines on the 605D engine?

Through a complete redesign of the lower cowl which managed to enlarge and deepen it just enough to allow keeping smooth contours.

It is a quite well known topic, being enlightened at first by Jean-Claude Mermet and further deepened by others.

The appearance of the Erla G-10s was so "perfect" that only at some viewing angles the new contours of the lower nose section could be noticed, this resulting the wrong identifications of G-10/AS for several years.

Here it is how I explained that in my last book:




I guess my friend Rasmussen will be able to supply more details.

Hope it helps

[D.B. Andrus]

One more step in the documentation of Erla-produced K-4's. These fuselages appear to be the Erla produced K-4/R6 type. Please note the arrows indicating the MW hatch on the starboard side and the Erla-type bulge on the port side of two of the fuselages. Also, the fact the photo was taken near Plauen probably indicates the assemblies were on their way to an Erla assembly facility.


Photo caption: "...photograph...taken on April 17, 1945, near Plauen, Germany, reveals at least fifty fuselages which failed to reach their final assembly point."

Note: The attached photo is from Messerschmitt "O-Nine Gallery", by Thomas Hitchcock, Monogram Aviation Publications, 1973(OOP), page 16.