Bf 109G fin

[Revi16]

What does the text at the bottom of the picture mean?

Derive Me 109 G
COL. ?OERGEN

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

The oldish Prien & Rodeike book "Messerschmitt Mf 109 F,G,&K -series" (1st edition, 1993) does have photo of similar fin of "G-14/AS, WNr. 165??3" at page 149. White 1 of III/JG 300 late Summer 1944. And similar fin also on the photo at page 150 (upper).

For me the most interesting part of the fin of WNr 165641 is the colours. The reason is that the photo does show the sprayed on lighter colour over the darker camo colours.

This lightening is shown on many Finnish AF Bf 109s. Underneath the camo pattern seems to be that very uniform one seen on the wooden high fins and rudders. I have wondered if the early examples were already painted in the later dark camouflage colours of brown and green (I leave out the RLM numbers here). And when they were mated to otherwise RLM 74/75/76 coloured airframes the fins (or whole empennages - horizontals too?) were lightened (with RLM 76?) to match the rest. Similar lightened fins can also be found on photos of Italian Bf 109s of Summer-Fall 1944. In any case the light overspray was painted already in Germany. In Finland the fins received additional layers of paint when markings were changed and the swastika on fin was painted over.

This relic could be the verification of use of the late camo colours already on the early Summer/late Spring 1944. Or if the photo colours do not reflect reality and the darker colours are RLM 74/75 that would be good information too.

Cheers,
Kari

[harrison987]

Originally Posted by Matti Salonen

The wooden fin was obviously quite standard in normal G-6 aircraft. At least 58 of the 110 G-6 aircraft received by the Finnish Air Force between March - August 1944 were fitted with that. Those were from series 411xxx, 412xxx, 163xxx, 164xxx, 165xxx, 166xxx and 167xxx. Only two of them were G-6/AS.

Matti

Matti,



No G6 I know of that came from factory had a wood tall tail. The only instance was when it was a re-build.

Wood tails did not appear until mid 1944, when aluminum was getting scarce.

The number blocks you are referring to are all far too early (late 1943) to be factory wood tall tails.

[Merlin]

Harrison,

the Bf 109G-6 aircraft received by the Finnish Air Force between March - August 1944 fitted with large tails were from series 411xxx, 412xxx, 163xxx, 164xxx, 165xxx, 166xxx and 167xxx as Matti stated. These aircraft were in fact manufactured between February and August 1944. Especially the 1655xx machines came off the line during June 1944. The larger tails were installed exatly to these Bf 109G-6 production ranges (Prien).

If the fin was found in the St. Quentin area, the loss date could not be January 1945. At that time the town was already fare behind the front line and the distance to the mentioned “home base” Stuttgart was more than 550km. During early 1945 the Luftwaffe at the Western front flew only home defence or tactical front line defence missions but no long distance penetration missions.

It looks that this aircraft became lost during the post D-Day fighting during Juli/August 1944 in that area. Some planes from I./JG 3, III.JG 11 and several from I./JG 5 are reported lost in the St. Quentin area.

[harrison987]

Originally Posted by Merlin

Harrison,

the Bf 109G-6 aircraft received by the Finnish Air Force between March - August 1944 fitted with large tails were from series 411xxx, 412xxx, 163xxx, 164xxx, 165xxx, 166xxx and 167xxx as Matti stated. These aircraft were in fact manufactured between February and August 1944. Especially the 1655xx machines came off the line during June 1944. The larger tails were installed exatly to these Bf 109G-6 production ranges (Prien).

Merlin and others...


Guys...


You are not reading my message correctly.


I am NOT debating the size or type of tail (being the tall tail).


I am discussing the material - in this case - wood.


All the aircraft in the production batches you are referring to began production in August of 1943. All the tall tails in these batches were made of ALUMINUM (not wood), unless the aircraft was at a repair facility where it could have been changed out to a wood type at that time.


Wood tails were a subcontracted part, made OUTSIDE of the main production facility, and were pre-camouflaged before delivery. As it is shown on the example we are speaking about.


The camouflage on this tail extends to BELOW where the vertical stab would have been attached. Meaning if this tail was installed at factory, there would be no camouflage in this area - only RLM02.


Therefore this tail we are discussing is 100% a subcontracted part - because 1) it is wood; and 2) it is a pre-camouflaged tail.

Also, there is little to no wear on the leading edge, and no color differential where the horizontal tab would have covered. Which means this tail had little flight time. Certainly not correct for a G6 that was built in late 1943. It could not have been lost early, etiher, as wood was not used until later in 1944/1945.

If it was installed on the G6 W.Nr. that is written, it was a newer addition as certainly it would show some age or wear...and also difference in shade where the horizontal root cover would have protected the remainder of the camouflage.


Tall tails were installed on the production batches you are speaking about...but not in the wood form, unless it was a subcontracted part.

[Merlin]

Harrison,

ALL the tall tails were made from wood!

I have the copy of a Rechlin report from December 1944, which deals with technical in-service problems with these fins. The first accident with such a fin due to technical problems was referenced there as "Spring 1944" with I./JG 3.

Mentioned is also a technical instruction to the Luftwaffe dated 18.Aug.44 to improve the servicing of these wooden fins, which was not properly performed before.

[Matti Salonen]

My final addition to this tall fin discussion. Every Bf 109 G-6 supplied to the Finnish Air Force was inspected in Finland and a proper receptance document written. This document contained certain notes concerning non-standard technical aspects (comparing these G-6 versions to the earlier G-2, which our Air Force had used since March 1943). The incpectors have written: "This aircraft has a tall fin made of plywood". For me this is quite clear indication of the material and I will not use my time for further research, because I am happy with my present very limited knowledge.
Still one interesting point: our Air Force was not happy with this wooden fin and started to change it in most of the aircraft to an old low aluminium fin already during the war.

Matti

[Stig Jarlevik]

While appreciating everyone's effort the topic has now taken a turn discussing the merits of the fin/rudder which falls outside the scope of the question itself.
Looks like this has reached as far as we can get without further details.
If I get any futher details I will post them here

Thanks again Guys
Stig

[harrison987]

Originally Posted by Merlin

Harrison,

ALL the tall tails were made from wood!

I have the copy of a Rechlin report from December 1944, which deals with technical in-service problems with these fins. The first accident with such a fin due to technical problems was referenced there as "Spring 1944" with I./JG 3.

Mentioned is also a technical instruction to the Luftwaffe dated 18.Aug.44 to improve the servicing of these wooden fins, which was not properly performed before.

Tall tails were not ALL made of wood. The tall tail started off as aluminum, and was predominantly so. It was a bolt on cap, that attached TO the lower section of the stabilizer. This is proven by numerous documents and period photos.


Below is one perfect example:







W.Nr. 413581 G-14


The standard top cap of the G6 was removed, and this part was added, thus making it the tall tail. It remained as such until early 1944.

Early 1944 G6 aircraft DID get examples of the wood tails, however this was only when the aircraft was going through a re-fit or repair.

Late 1944-1945 aircraft received a wood tail...

The Finnish G-6. W. Nr.167271 still has her standard aluminum tall tail, which is a much late block than the fin in this discussion. Any wood ones that Finland received were most likely attached as an upgrade.


As per this particular fin, this one cannot be the original factory applied one, as they were still being made of aluminum at that time, it is too new, and clearly was made by a subcontractor. Most likely this was applied during a re-fit or repair.

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

Stig, after checking available data JG 300 may still be a valid avenue to pursue regarding the history of Wnr is 165641.

I see in photos text "Musée Freming-Merlebach". I wonder if this is Freyming-Merlebach in France near German border. There seems to be a military museum according internet search results.

As I wrote III/JG 300 had similar fins installed in their planes, but the unit was quite far away from France. But is seems I/JG 300 spent three-four days (12.6.-15.6.-1944) at Merzhausen (http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg300.htm ). If the Merzhausen is the same as Google maps shows near Freiburg im Breisgau it is some 150 km SE of Freyming-Merlebach. Not a long distance for a Bf 109.

Summarische losses show I/JG 300 having two total losses and two damaged planes on operational flight plus three damaged without enemy action on non-operational flight during period 12.-15.6.1944. All losses were suffered either 12th or 13th June. Both total losses were 13.6.1944. Is there any personal loss data for these?

And I am very interested about the colours of this fin relic. Bet many others, too. Thank you for posting the photos.


Cheers,
Kari

PS Was there any sharing arrangement between JG 53 and I/JG 300? Or any other unit? AFAIK II/JG 53 and II/JG301 shared planes at some point.

PPS Noticed Harrison's post above. Most of the FinnAF high 109 fins were WOOD. Some early ones were aluminium. There are people who know more about this. All Finnish G-6s were factory new. It may be we (Finns) and Italians got most (majority?) of the early wooden ones if they were inferior quality. Would not surprise me. At least it seems to have been common understanding even back then that the new G-6 were inferior qualitywise to the G-2 subtypes.

MT-507 (WNr 167271) does not have tall tail.