Question about Erla cowling for late Me 109

[klemchen]

Hello,

reading the thread "Very interesting Bf 109 G-10" brought back to my mind an old question:
Some time ago somebody showed me a Mtt. drawing comparing the longitudinal bottom lines of the Me 109 G cowling with those of the "Me 109 K". The latter appeared to be about 1 or 2 cm lower than the former over practically the whole length. Since the lower cowling of the "Regensburg K-4" was based on that of the Me 109 F/G (with a deeper Fo 987 oil cooler inserted and the so-called chin bumps added), "Me 109 K" could possibly only refer to the G-10/K-4 cowling by Erla, the lower part of which was an entirely new design too (e.g. asymmetric vs. symmetric). The oil cooler on that appears to be distinctly shallower, and its front opening sometimes is claimed to be wider.
But if the Erla cowling was indeed deeper and, moreover, if the same Fo 987 oil cooler was installed in the same position with respect to the engine as it was on other G-10/K-4s, from outside it would appear shallower, and its front opening might give the impression of being wider because of its "flatter" proportions.
Now I suppose that just this was the case. For it is hardly imaginable that at that stage of the war the logistics situatiuon would be made even more difficult by introducing another type of oil cooler for the Me 109, production of which was to be discontinued anyway in the following year. If Erla were making their oil coolers themselves they might as well take a new design, but by the different structure of the designations for oil coolers in the replacement parts lists from those for other airframe parts I guess that radiators were not made by the airframe builders but by special other producers.
There is, although only weak, some evidence that my conjecture is correct: In the front view on a well-known Mtt. general arrangement drawing of the Erla G-10 the front opening of the oil cooler duct appears to be about 46 cm wide. This agrees pretty well with the Fo 870 oil cooler duct of earlier Me 109 Gs, which was 462 mm wide at the bottom and 448 mm at the top, and I think the Fo 987 was just deeper but not wider. The trouble with that famous Mtt. drawing is that while it is surprisingly precise in some respects it is quite crude in others, so the width of the oil cooler could just as well be due to crudeness.
Now my question to the experts is whether anybody knows any further facts which would support or refute my presumptions.

Best wishes,
klemchen