USAF Museum Bf109 G10

[Larry deZeng]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

The point isn't how many people would know the difference, it's maintaining standards of scholarship. A Bf 109 is every bit as deserving of accurate representation in a museum as a flint axe, a Roman sword or a Civil War musket.

It makes a difference to the director of the Museum. According to the comments he allegedly made and other evidence provided here by TOCH! members who were past visitors, the Museum doesn't give a hoot about accuracy and scholarship. But before we have the director and his staff boiled in oil or have the Museum shut down indefinitely, perhaps there are other issues involved that we don't know about such as budget limitations regarding restoration, directives from HQ USAF in Washington, morons running the place when the restoration was done many years ago, etc. If enough visitors wrote complaints about the mislabeling of their exhibits, it would eventually carry some weight and perhaps force changes in the way the place is run.

[veltro]

A museum "by definition" has some standards to aim for. One of the foremost is historical accuracy and the capability to teach people correct things (and not 56% or who knows what).

Some call it "nitpicking", others call it "standards of scholarship"... sue me, but I'll go forever where the latter are respected.

The price to pay will not be reflected in administrative terms but in knowledge terms and the risk is that by following this route, one day a museum will exhibit a "Roman musket" simply because no one will give a damn if it is wrong...

IMHO, of course...

[harrison987]

yes...that Richard Corey bit is also totally incorrect in many ways.

The G-10 was not "re-built" from older aiframes...

Someone once told me..."museums are not historians...they are simply people who restore aicraft".

[Dan O'Connell]

Originally Posted by Larry deZeng

It makes a difference to the director of the Museum. According to the comments he allegedly made and other evidence provided here by TOCH! members who were past visitors, the Museum doesn't give a hoot about accuracy and scholarship. But before we have the director and his staff boiled in oil or have the Museum shut down indefinitely, perhaps there are other issues involved that we don't know about such as budget limitations regarding restoration, directives from HQ USAF in Washington, morons running the place when the restoration was done many years ago, etc. If enough visitors wrote complaints about the mislabeling of their exhibits, it would eventually carry some weight and perhaps force changes in the way the place is run.

There are many people just like me who will gladly offer their time, expertise, money and "man power" to see that these artifacts are CORRECTLY displayed, at no cost to the museum or the tax payer. An artifact is presented as it's "type" and you only get one chance to get it right, before the errors start perpetuating themselves.

Hopefully, these exhibits will last for generations. It is inexcuseable to incorrectly display them.

I am a retired archaeologist. What damage would I cause, if in a tired and uncareing moment, or just plain spitefulness, I said an Oregon arrowhead was "Egyptian". I certainly would know it's untrue, but others later would say "see, here's proof, the Egyptians were in Oregon".

Absurd, yes, but we are dealing with history, and the hard won knowledge of a few serves to educate many, which is passed on. That's called a knowledge base.

We have so few of these "relics" left, that to an historian, or any person knowledgeable in the subject, it's practicaly criminal to pass on untruths.

It's even worse not to even care.

[Harold Lake]

This tread seems to have departed from the original intent and, although the new contributors are both eloguent and relevant, it's a little like preaching to the choir.

In all fairness, Mr. Corey's contribution is almost a decade old and I can not help but wonder if he has discovered new information in the years since? For example, a quick look at Messerschmitt 109 werknummern shows not a single entry within the 120000 range, much less something for a G-14. Thus, the number 127914 must relate to something else.

Moreover, the number 610824 must also be suspect because there are apparently NO entries in the 610700 and 610800 blocks. Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe the number should probably read 610924.

Lastly, I seem to recall the enigma of a the second ID plate was solved some years ago, or am I mistaken?

Hal

[S Sheflin]

Gentlemen,

John Beaman and others wiser than I, have addressed this G-10 Werknummer situation before. The two aircraft in question are G-10/U4’s. Both are new build WNF airframes and not rebuilds. The number quoted, 127914, is most likely a fuselage Werknummer and not the final aircraft Werknummer.

I have collected data on late-war Fw 190s that clearly demonstrate that fuselages, tail units, landing gear and wings each have a unique six-digit (or more) “Werknummer.” While collecting information on captured or destroyed Luftwaffe aircraft, Allied units often mistook these for complete aircraft Werknummern and duly reported them as such.

Regarding Mr. Lake’s comments, I too have been suspicious of the WNr. 610824 because it falls outside of known G-10 Werknummer ranges. However, we have all seen absolute “facts” about Luftwaffe aircraft fall to new information.

Finally, to no avail, I also wrote to the AFM staff and offered them input regarding the correct markings of their Bf 109 G-10/U4. A lower level staffer actually admitted that the guy running the place at the time wasn’t interested in our help.

Steve Sheflin

[harrison987]

Dear Hal and Steve,

WNF produced the W.Nr block 610750 - 611100, and first test flights began in Jan 1945. There is a recorded loss of WNr. 610796 in Feb 1945...so I suspect the W.Nr. 610824 is correct.

Mike

[Harold Lake]

Ken,

Thanks for the updated information regarding WNF production. Always nice to add to one's knowledge of obscure data.

Hal

[Martin388]

Originally Posted by harrison987

Dear Hal and Steve,

WNF produced the W.Nr block 610750 - 611100, and first test flights began in Jan 1945. There is a recorded loss of WNr. 610796 in Feb 1945...so I suspect the W.Nr. 610824 is correct.

Mike

Hal,

I am interested in your information on test flying (you mean Einflug?) in early 1945 at WNF.
What kind of source does your information come from?
Does it mention place of Einflug (Wr.Neustadt, Markersdorf, Zwoelfaxing, Bad Voeslau)?
My partiicular interest is to compile production Werknummern, Stammkennzeichen and dates from WNF, (probably including DIANA and Goeyr production).

Martin from Austria

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by chuckschmitz

Nick,

How do they do things at the RAF Museum?

A slow reply but I've now been back to Hendon and the answer is that they generally show that aircraft in its original appearance. If they don't, they say on the display what they've done and what it originally was. Again, with replicas and multi-aircraft rebuilds, they tell you that they've chosen particular markings.