Some questions about damaged airframe and reparation centers...

[olefebvre]

While going through the 109 production data i have collected so far i have noticed something odd.

So here is my question:
An aircraft getting to a reparation center with an usable fuselage would be repaired and will keep its WkNr, do you agree?

Now if the same a/c got his fuse so damaged that it can't be repaired, it still can provide some spares (lightly or undamaged parts), what will become of those spares ? Would it be possible that they were mated to new fuselage and not appearing on the production list of the fuse manufacturer ?

To sum up would it be possible that reparation centers were attributed some WkNr blocks for their own use ?

Thanks in advance for your help.

CHeers,
olivier

[David Ransome]

Hi,

From my experience regarding Heinkel 111s I would say categorically not! If anyone says otherwise I'd be interested to know but, so far, I have only encountered repaired 111s with factory batch WNrs, where the original aircraft's provenance has been known, whether Heinkel or licence built.

Hope this helps,

Regards

David

[olefebvre]

Thanks David,

As a example i'm quite certain that Bf 109E-3s in the 1660-1700 range were produced, yet Erla E-4 production end at 1659 and Ausburg 109B production begins at 1701. Same goes for the 2326-2346 range yet again for Emils or the 2444-2476 range for Doras.
There are several range of WkNr which are not attributed to any manufacturer (that i know) yet i'm certain there are a/c in those blocks.

Cheers,
Olivier

[David Ransome]

Hi,

I can't comment on other than 111s regrettably but I can say that with the WNrs there were 'gaps'; occasionally these would be where the RLM had allocated to another manufacturer or, as I believe could have been the case as war progressed, that some groups were never allocated. This was a method of disabling the enemies abilities to assess production numbers of aircraft overall, I feel sure.

Just my own thoughts, it would be useful if anyone could confirm or otherwise!

Kind regards,

David

[olefebvre]

That's true david but since there are losses listed in them with the same distribution pattern as in the other nearby blocks it isn't just recording errors that could account for them.There are definitely some gap between blocks but it seems there wasn't so much in the early 109 production, and gaps really appeared with the Gustav production.

[David Ransome]

Hi Olivier,

Again, I can only offer comment on the He111. I have found several 111s with WNrs that did not seem to be in a particular manufacturer block. At first my thought was that there had been a number transposition error but, after obtaining some original data plates (several aircraft), I found that the aircraft had been made by a particular manufacturer. As the production dates tied in with various components etc from all over the aircraft it was obviously direct production rather than a cobbled together repair job - and also there was no 'R' after the WNr.

I think that manufacturer's would also have problems trying to build up whole aircraft from recovered parts. They would have to be re-accepted or 'proved' by the RLM and it would be extremely costly trying to assess what the stresses and strains of a crash had actually done to something that looked, on the surface, to be okay. The logistics of transporting damage recovered bits and pieces around in wartime conditions would also be fairly horrendous - I suspect that that is probably why so many damaged aircraft that looked 'reasonable' in photos were so often scrapped on or near to site!

My own work on 111s is far from complete and I dare say that even when it is there will be plenty of knowledge gaps that will probably never be filled which is why I always welcome new information. Everything I have said in this thread so far is based on my current knowledge and experience and I am unable to offer any further comment and again, like yourself, would be interested to hear from other parties!

Regards,

David