Eberhardt Gzik´s machine

[Angantyr]

Greetings all!

I have a question about the machine flown by Eberhardt Gzik when in service with 2 Staffel of JG 300 in October 1944.

It is a fairly well-known machine “Rote 2” “Rita” being repeatedly (erroneously) identified as an Erla- built bf 109G-10 of the 491xxx series.

However, a photo of the machine in autumn 1944 shows a “clean” under-cowling.

A sister-ship of the same staffel “Rote 12” “Gisela” is shown in an illustration, and this is being a bf 109G-6/AS, according to that source (Modelling Madness)

So my question, if anyone has the knowledge, is: was Gzik´s machine in fact a G-6/AS or an early-production G-14/AS?

Grateful for answers

Yours Truly

Angantyr

[FalkeEins]

from Richard Goyat's response the last time this question was asked;

“[...] According to the Luftwaffe's monthly strength reports and the nominative loss reports, the first G-10s didn't reach I./JG 300 before November 1944. The photographs of Gzik's “Red 2” were probably taken in October 1944. So Gzik's “Red 2” couldn't have been a G-10 and couldn't have worn the serial number 490642. Incidentally, none of the three photographs of “Red 2” I know show the Werknummer. In September and October 1944, the bulk of known serial numbers worn by I./JG 300 aircraft was in the 780800-784000 range (MTT Regensburg), with a few more machines from the 413400-413900 and 460000-462000 batches (Erla). Gzik's “Red 2” was most probably an Erla produced G-14/AS.

So “Red 2” W.Nr. 490642, which was labeled as a G-10 in the document reporting its loss on 14 January 1945 with Uffz. Tautscher at the controls, was simply another aircraft, delivered to I./JG 300 at least one or two months after Gzik's “Red 2”. [...]”

[Angantyr]

Thank you very much for your info!

Sincerely.

Angantyr

[RT]

From 28.sept to 5 nov 44 he flew the Ro2 nd it was a G-14, all the Bf109 flown by Gzik during his time to 2.JG300 were G-14, LAST FLIGHT 5.NOV
then he flew for 9.EJG2

Remi

[Angantyr]

Thanks for your info!

This machine (Wnr 490642) has been illustrated both by Mr Sundin and KWW and appears on JG 300 website, but, repetition does not make anything truer.

I took the liberty of creating a "correct" profile of the aircraft in question, but i cannot publish it yeat, as it is a manipulation of Mr sundins profile(s)

Pending his approval, I will publish it later.

Thank you for taking the time,

Best wishes.

Angantyr

[FalkeEins]

..are you aware that Mr Sundin illustrated the French edition of the JG 300 history? The authors' supervised his work so that a number of the JG 300 artworks he had rendered previously - and which can be found on the net - underwent considerable improvement. In my view these are some of the best Luftwaffe fighter side views yet created ...

[John Beaman]

FalkeEins is correct about GZik's machine. Early production G-14/AS machines did not have the "bumps" under the lower cowling as was typical of MTT machines. As with so many other things "109", Erla took their own path.

[Angantyr]

Oh yes, Sundins profiles is among the best in the buissness, no argument there, however, among the latest updates on his homepage, there was the "G-10/AS" again, complete with Wnr 490642, I assume that was an oversight on his behalf.

Thank you for taking the time to answer,

All the best!

Angantyr

[Angantyr]

Yes, I have heard that the first production G-14/AS did not have the under-cowling "bump", and Gziks machine shows no sign of these. However, for some reason I completely forgot the picture of him in the cockpit, where the "box" brought about by the MW50 system is clearly showing, thereby identifying it as a G-14, maybe it´s old age setting in?

Thank you for your information!

All the best!

Angantyr

[veltro]

Originally Posted by John Beaman

FalkeEins is correct about GZik's machine. Early production G-14/AS machines did not have the "bumps" under the lower cowling as was typical of MTT machines. As with so many other things "109", Erla took their own path.

Well, John, this is a case where (strangely) it was MTT to take its own path...

In fact, there was absolutely no need for a DB 605 AS engine of the two "chin" bulges, which were requested only by the DB 605 D, as they were associated to a new (enlarged) water tubing running just below the engine in that point and requesting more "depth"...

The Erla G-14/ASs (identified as "early" because their production ceased rather soon) correctly had the standard lower cowl (their own path was resumed when the production of their G-10s was planned, since they redesigned a completely new lower cowl rather than adopt the "chin" bulges....)

MTT instead, apparently with no technical reason, adopted for the G-14/ASs of their production, the lower "twin-chin bulged" cowl which for so many years was associated to the so-called "standard" G-10 and to the K-4. I repeat, with no technical reason, as it is proved by several photographs of abandoned/captured G-14/ASs (identified also by the lower oil filler point which meant the old "horseshoe" oil tank associated with the AS engine) with the lower "chin-bulged" cowl open and absolutely no trace of the protuding tubing which was to be associated with it...

The only reason for this choice seems to have been the wide availability of those types of lower cowls already used in the production of the K-4 which was by late 1944 the only other version produced by MTT.

A few years ago I posted a thread with photographs in another forum, but I guess it is all gone by now...