Me 109 tail questions

[klemchen]

Hi everybody,

My main concern is gaining as much insight as possible into the technical aspects of the 109. I have to apologize in advance for being lengthy and tedious, but I do not know how to put my questions more briefly. –
The geometry of the horizontal tail of the Me 109 F was defined by a measures table (with drawings) denoted by 8-109.310. I suppose that this was also the component number of the first variant of the F tail plane. But in the replacement parts lists for the F and for the G the tail plane is designated by 109.319 and 109.336 respectively. (The 8 is mostly omitted because it stands for the category of airframes for all types.) This seems to indicate some constructive changes. The tip is still denoted by 109.310-10 in both cases, and similarly the transition fairings to the fin are 109.310-11/12 (left/right).The same still holds for the metal tail plane of the K. The use of these denotations seems to indicate that the changes incorporated did not affect the geometry.
For the late G and the K there also was designed a wooden tail plane, denoted by 009.310, with elevator 009.331 (what about 009.311?). Here the tips were integral to the tail plane, while the transition fairings to the fin were 109.351-042/043. All wooden parts were interchangeable with their metal counterparts.
Now there is a Czech drawing of the horizontal tail denoted by 8-109.000-301. The plan form is the same as on 109.310, but the profiles are slightly different. The maximal thickness is assumed at 30% chord length, just as with 109.310, but the profile is thinner by about 1.5 mm at the root and by about half that near the tip. Along chord length the profile is increasing slightly slower and then decreasing slightly faster than for 109.310. I am quite aware of some strange effects in aerodynamics, but I still doubt that these slight modifications of the profiles had any measurable impact on performance.
The question is whether 8-109.000-301 is merely an adaptation of German Messerschmitt designations to the Czech Avia system, or if it stands for still another design of the tail plane. Anyway, the profiles of 009.310 were probably different from those of 109.310, for this would explain why the transition fairings to the fin did not remain the same.
There were at least six different trimming strips for the elevator, and I am unable to allocate them to certain variants. –
The geometry of the vertical tail of the F and the early G was defined by a measurements table denoted by (8-)109.312. The original fin tip was 109.312-20, and the fairing of the gap at the front between the fin and the fuselage was 109.312-21. The main part of the fin was shaped by two monocoque halves 109.312-Z01/Z02 (left/right). All these parts except the tip seem to have remained the same also for the tall metal fin of the late G and the K, the difference being just a higher tip, 109.366-001. There were two tall metal fins, 109.366 and 009.328, which seem to differ only by the way the tip was attached to the fin. The tall metal rudder was 109.367.
The late G and the K could also have a wooden vertical tail, consisting of the fin 009.308 and one of the two rudders 009.309 and 009.320. Again all wooden components were interchangeable with the corresponding metal parts.
To make things more complicated, on a Czech drawing of the entire tail the profiles 8-109.000-301 of the horizontal part and 8-109.000-302 of the vertical part are mentioned. To me it is not clear how these fit into the pattern of German designations. –
Are there any experts who can bring more clarity into this complex? Any bit of information will be gratefully appreciated.

Best wishes to all,
klemchen