Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates

[harrison987]

I am confused by the reason for the 2 production plates on the fuselage side.

It was already proven that the second plate did not indicate an older airframe updraged to G-10, as all G-10's were made new.

JaPo's G-10/U4 book explains it indicated "changes" at time of production, but the book does not explain the types of changes.

Were these "changes" possibly repairs done to damaged machines which had not yet left the hands of the manufacture - such as a replacement part after a failed test-flight or damaged while in transport?

The G-10 did have some upgrades as the months went on, but I do not think enough to warrant a second plate.

Can anyone clarify this?

[Micke D]

Not an answer to your question, but many (all?) of the Fw 190D-9s produced by Fieseler seems to have had two plates on the fuselage.

[Franek Grabowski]

New may mean new built parts or subassemblies from older variants like G-6.

[harrison987]

HI Franek...

Ah yes...but...no old subassmeblies (G-6) were used on the G-10. All G-10's were made new.

[stephen f. polyak]

Here's what I believe the second plate looked like (note: there was more than one version/style of this type of multi-entry box plate):

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.p...2a3lmh&thumb=4

I believe the word "änderungsstufe" roughly translates to "changes". Is that correct?

[harrison987]

Hi Stephen,

Yes, that is correct! The spaces were for dates from what I understand...

mike

[ArtieBob]

IMHO, some of the confusion may relate to two items. First, the length of time a major component of an aircraft, i.e., the fuselage may have been in inventory before it reached final assembly. I am not as familiar with the details of Bf 109 manufacturing as with some other Luftwaffe types but generally, fuselage, wings, power “egg”, empennage, etc., might not have been manufactured at the final assembly point. The fuselage generally carried the RLM W.Nr. for the aircraft and, in cases that can be documented, the RLM W.Nr. was assigned at the fuselage subassembly point. There might be weeks or even months between leaving the subassembly site and reaching final assembly, photos show fields full of Bf 109 fuselages awaiting wing, power eggs, etc.
Second, it would appear that whether an aircraft was considered Neubau or Umbau would depend when the BAL acceptance was made, thus a fuselage intended to become a G-6, if it was in production inventory, might be modified before final assembly and BAL acceptance to become another subtype and still be considered Neubau. If one looks at the acceptance sequences they are generally not in W.Nr. sequence. A “new” aircraft might be flown directly to another site following BAL acceptance and modified would be considered Umbau. Of course, when dealing with almost any aspect of Luftwaffe production during the last year of the war, exceptions are the rule and documentation may not exist. The goal was to push completed aircraft out the door (cave, or from under the trees).
Finally, IIRC, von Lutz may have firsthand sighting experience on this subject.
Best Regards,
Artie Bob

[Grzegorz Cisek]

I am still conviced that the second plate indicated an old airframe rebuilt to the new Bf 109 version. Here you have an example o this :

http://www.yumodel.co.yu/batajnica_a...two_me109s.htm

During G-6 and G-14 reparation they were finished as new G-10. The word "changes" in this case means upgrade to a new version.

[Franek Grabowski]

Mike
I do not mean recycled parts but new built parts in G-6/G-14 standard.

[harrison987]

Hi Grzegorz!

The link you provided has wrong information.

For many years, it was thought that older G-6 airframes and G-14 airframes were used in the production of the G-10.

This is not the case, and was dis-proven around 4 years ago.

The G-10 was a "completely" new airframe, top to bottom, and no G-6 or G-14 airframes were used to "upgrade" or build to G-10 status.

I do agree with you ArtieBob on the previously made parts, fuselage, etc. being used in construction, but it would not solve the mystery of the 2nd data plate....I'll explain why.

The WNF "DIANA" plant (which only manufactured the G-10/U4) is a perfect example. Fuselages were completely newly-made in tunnel 217A; tunnel 217C manufactured newly-made wings, and 217B made wing components. The aircraft was then transported for final assembly at the railway station as Tisnov.

The only assembly made OUTSIDE of the plant were the tail surfaces (rudder), which were of the wooden type and once manufactured, sent to the plant for assembly.

Everything on the G-10 was made new in it's entirety, and no G-6 or G-14 parts, sub-assemblies, or fuselages were used in the construction...yet machines were found at DIANA (after the surrender) had this 2nd data plate.

Also, my concerns on information in the web article provided above are as follows:

610824 had all data plates removed, and none of the information which was on them was recorded...only a note on a sub-assembly plate which was found inside the aircraft. What was on that plate, no one knows...but the claim was that this subassembly piece was made for the G6. What that piece was, no one knows. It could have been a field replacement of any kind kind. In mid-1944, WNF was only manufacturing then G-14/U4, so having a G-6 Fuselage of any type lying around in Jan/Feb of 1945 when 610824 was built is an impossibility, no?

Also, it is noted that 610937 had plates in-tact, and suggest the machine was a re-built G-14, werke number 127914. However, I have checked all my sources, and NO G-6 or G-14's were allotted a W.Nr. even close to that number. There is a gap in G-6 production from W.Nr. 110500 to W.Nr. 140400, and nothing was made in between...G-14 production began at the W.Nr.165000, ruling out "both" G-6 or G-14 airframes being used or upgraded. Please someone correct me if I am wrong on this, as I am only sourcing 2 books on the werk. number production.

I suspect these data plates that were found, were not werk numbers of the aircraft, but rather werk numbers of the part in question.

There are some instances and 1 or 2 photos that show older tail surfaces (small rudder), elevator, even a completely older tail, on the G-10 (different camouflage pattern), but after thorough examination, it was proven that these were done to get the aircraft flyable (in the field) to make the surrender to Neubiberg (American side) and escape the Russian Advance. And I think there were only 2 aircraft which had this done.

Various G-10's constructed at WNF DIANA (which made all aircraft new), had this dual tag (found after the German surrender). So that disproves the theory of an older Fuselage (G6 or G-14) being used in the construction, and the reason for that data plate.

I thought the tag "may" have been for field use (entering dates or changes when a major assembly was replaced in the field), but if that were the case, all aircraft would have had dual tags, which is not the case.

hmmm...