# Late Hundert Neun ID



## kettbo (Oct 17, 2011)

OK, I have many books (older) on WW2 fighters but am sometimes stumped on telling later *Bf-109G-6 from Bf-109G-14*

I know there were rebuilds, differences between the factories, the AS versions....it gets pretty clouded.
Add to this captions and such, sometimes not the best.
Do we tell from the WN on the tail only? Data Plate?

The Squadron booklet is not adequate but says G-14 standard was; Erla haube canopy, tall tail with 2 trim tabs, and DB605A. Also noted the fitment of the pump bulges below the right side MG-131 boil.

I intend to get PRIEN's et al book on the later 109s but any info now would be appreciated
Also, what other books as reference?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 17, 2011)

You almost got it!

Look at the rudder to be sure which is which. The G-6 early had the forward facing diagonal cut above and ahead of the pivot, the later models had a clean vertical rudder from top to bottom. And then, on the later models, you can even narrow it down further by looking at the rudder's pivot point and trim tabs.


----------



## kettbo (Oct 17, 2011)

any clues to ID if MW50 equipment is on board? I believe this was std to the G-14


----------



## kettbo (Oct 17, 2011)

let me rephrase what I am looking for.
The late G-6 had the tall tail with straight hinge, Erla Haube canopy, how is one to tell if he is looking at a G-6 or a G-14 which made these features standard?
The G-10 an K-4 are pretty easy to distinguish


----------



## vanir (Oct 17, 2011)

I'm going on memory so might be worth double checking details, but these should point you in the right direction. I find LEMB are good with things like this.

The tails are more like introduced to the various lines of production, which was undergoing vast reorganisation at the time I might add. Same with the canopy, standardised for all 109 production at dates at each airframe section's production line and not a matter of specific model.

Here's what they did, under direction from RLM split production to become modular and regional, all 109 tails were produced at say three locations in bavaria, two in bohemia, etc. Each specific model was assembled to order, mostly fighter-bomber and bomber-interceptor mods by late-43 which aren't very clean for counter air. MW50 was standardised by mid-44 and the completed production system was finally in place during 44 so this all resulted in the centralisation and reorganisation of all former G-5, G-6 and G-8 109 production, which were therefore updated to current radio navigation and standard equipment and redesignated G-14.

It wasn't really a new model, it was an administrative designation. All G-5, G-6 and G-8 production got reorganised to became the G-14. But the updates are a new instrument panel, new radio sets and MW50 kit standardisation. The entire measure was an interim for the K-4. The G-10 was a transitional supplement to the K-4, it didn't enter production until around the same time as they were waiting on the D series 605 engine. All 109 production was really waiting on the D series engine from about mid-43, it should've been in the late G-6 which should've been the last 109 model but the course of war changed things.

So don't think of it so much as G-14 and G-6, G-10 and K series. Think of it as "109 production" a big centralised thing and each model little more than circumstantial specifics, which are defined more by where and when each assembled part was made and by whom, that defines their model. What the backlog of orders from airfields and the RLM list is what defines their mod fit and whether they are factory or conversion plus date of last tear down maintenance will define their equipment.

It's all a big vat of 109 production, a big mixer by Speer's reorganisation but it is how 40,000 Me109 were produced that year, by just chucking it all in together and going for broke.

So here are your tells:
a G-14 is really a G-6, G-8, etc. to begin with, nothing has been changed but all 109 production has been updated at the factory to current radio network and general service standards
you trace the information plate, there's a prefix for G-14 and werknummers were sometimes painted over, sometimes the old G-6 one was simply left. The other confusing issue is that when 109 production lines started tooling for K series parts they crept immediately into G-14 production, making it really hard to pick a G-14 from a G-10 after Nov44 and even sometimes the engines were the same spec in 45.
Very few G-6 received MW50, those which were it was about Apr44 they started appearing and everyone referred to them as G-14, soon after every 109 was called G-14 as soon as it got a refit with the new radios. If done in the field a guage was bolted inside and it was called a partial conversion, if at the factory it got a new instrument panel.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 17, 2011)

Well the G-14 was rebuilt airframes for the most part iirc, in an attempt to standardize the 'G' series. Fail. Hence the G-10. G-5 G-6's were built right to the end of the war. Gyor, Hungary plant comes to mind on that. Not all G-14 used MW-50. B4 fuel was used with MW-50 however. C3 could use the MW-50. Dead giveaway is to look in the backside of the cockpit where the luggage hatch was replaced by a box that now housed a relocated battery so the MW-50/GM-1 equiptment would fit and keep the CofG within spec. The 'K' series came to life for the need for greater speed. G-10's came months before the 'K' series did. The DB 605D was used mainly in G-10 production, and there was a temporarly short supply when the 'K' was due.

G-6's could be had with the Erla Huebe, 20cm tail extention, and the tall/short fin (not all late G-6's used the tall fin). An example can be seen here: Falcon's Messerschmitt Bf 109 Hangar. Its a Bf 109G-6/Y built at Gyor, Hungary.

The small Beule below the starboard Mg131 Beule did appear on G-5 G-6's from Erla iirc. Some G-6/AS used and ultra rare cowl used on the starboard side manufactered by Mtt-Reg, seen drawings, but never a foto.

As far as books, anything by Prien, Augburgs Last Eagles, Sams Modlers Guide, are good starts. Veltro (posts on 12oclock high, LEMB) has a very good book to.


----------



## kettbo (Oct 18, 2011)

Vanir and Ratsel
Thanks for your responses. I was led astray by the Squadron *Messerschmitt Bf 109 in Action Part 2* by Beaman. Was led to believe the G-14 was a new model not admin for upgraded G5/6/8 though I suppose by AUG-SEP one could expect some factory built G-14s I'd think.....

Yes, with 109s, always lots of caveats! This is what makes them so interesting. I have seen later build with short tail and old style canopy.

G-10s, all rebuilds or some new and some old?

re MW-50. Great tip looking for btty box behind the pilot's head. THANK YOU Ratsel

Anyone care to hazard Mk-108 fitment questions? 
I recall someone posted a detailed loss statement for a certain day, many 109G-6/U-4.
Would they equip say a Staffel with Mk-108 or a sprinkling here and there?
I understand the initial fielding was small but the 30mm became more common later.
20%--up to 50%???


----------



## vanir (Oct 18, 2011)

All G-10 were assembled from new build, mix and match G-6 and K-4 parts as the modular production centres started transitioning but also geared up existing production. Important to keep referring to 109 production as 109 assembly in 1944-45 because there were no longer any individual production lines, just assembly plants that only skinned and fitted the airframes to specification from planetary parts production, so of course multiple models came from the very same production lines as assembly stations expanded, Erla made both G-10 and K-4, some plants G-14 only, others G-14 and G-10, etc. some made different ones at different times and then switched back again, it was all modular and dependent on logistics and specification and how badly you were getting bombed that day.

The Hungarian plant didn't get MW50 kits at one point IIRC and were the ones putting licensed 605A-1 robbed from Me210Ca lines into them, but they were still designated G-14 and had the new radio gear.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 18, 2011)

G-14 was an attempt to standardize modifications that were introduced step-by-step into the G-6 by various manufacturers, MW-50 was also installe din late-production G-6. G-14 were not rebuilt older airframes, same with G-10.
According to Military archive Freiburg reports:
K-4 were only built at the Mtt plant Regensburg.
G-6/U4: 1632 built at WNF, 31 in Györ
plain G-6 and G-6 tp (tropical version): 7832 and 1417 + several hundred other G-6 modifications
-> Not really a lot /U4 subversions with MK 108
G-5/G-8 were not standardized as G-14 as there's no pressurized G-14 subversion, the G-8 stayed in production as well although it may have benefitted from some standardized parts.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 18, 2011)

While I don't agree that all G-14's were new airframes, I'll concede that fact. Yes G-10's were 100% brand new airframes. K-4 was a Mtt-Reg domain. Der Mk108 placement is easy to spot if you know where to look. On the straboard side near near the #6 frame station there is a round access hatch for the compressed air fill for the Mk108, theres a small blast port bhind the right side exhaust, also indicating the Mk108 installation. The Mg151/20 did not have this. OR perhaps I read wrong and you want to no how many G-6's came with the 3cm cannon, if thats the case then if it was built at Mtt-Reg then theres a good chance it did. Especially with the later G-6's. But heres some other examples: Falcon's Messerschmitt Bf 109 Hangar


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2011)

Denniss said:


> K-4 were only built at the Mtt plant Regensburg.



An interesting thread! Unfortunately you would need to write a book to answer the original question.

I thought K-4s in the 570000-571000 production block were to be produced at Erla. I know that Leipzig was occupied before production got into full swing but at least one example (W.Nr.570362) is known.
Wiener Neustadt was also supposed to produce K-4s though this never happened.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 18, 2011)

I think W.Nr.570 362 was a K-6 and had the 3cm cannon mounted inside the wings (mostly), rather then in pods IIRC. Mtt-Reg was suspose to buld the majority of G-10's, but only built around 300 units, W.Nr. 130 000 - 130 500. They then exclusively built the K-4.

EDIT: found the K-6 Erla wing:


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2011)

Prien and just about everyone else has it as a K-4/R6,that is with a gun camera (BSK 16) in the port wing.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 18, 2011)

Which? The wing or W.Nr.570 362 ?


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2011)

The Werknummer. I'm with you on the mocked up wing.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 18, 2011)

I'll adjust my notes.. many thanks.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 18, 2011)

For a good overview of late war 109 production see this thread and Post #28 for the list,
Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum


----------



## kettbo (Oct 18, 2011)

Thank you for all the great responses folks!
then I found THIS:
Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
older thread but good info, some conflicting with what you all have told me with lots of reference to G-6 and G-14. IIRC, several mentioned G-14 being new build
several references to G-6 being made into the Spring of 1945, losses to that date...

Lots to digest with answers and more questions raised
Difficult for me to tell

If you have been avoiding the modelling threads, you have missed my 1/144 scratchbuilt GUSTAV. I set the project aside to do a charity cycling event in Connecticut. Now complete, healed, caught up with affairs of the household....nearly ready to get back to building. Using info from this thread to guide me toward the ultimate late '44 build...easily converted to mid '43--end of war with conversion kits. Plan was a very late G-6 / G-14 with cannon bumps and tall tail. One shot around 6 hours into it and another where I left off


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 18, 2011)

Very nice! You should add the _Neptune Radar _to it!

The link in post #17 is a good starting point, but unfortunately outdated. Much more aircraft can be added to that list. Especially for Erla Mtt-Reg.

Kindest Regards


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Very nice! You should add the _Neptune Radar _to it!
> 
> The link in post #17 is a good starting point, but unfortunately outdated. Much more aircraft can be added to that list. Especially for Erla Mtt-Reg.
> 
> Kindest Regards



How many 'much more'? Please note those numbers are for *new build* (ie from scratch) a/c and does not include the numbers re-manufactured using old airframes. For example, the NASM's Fw190 has 3 WNr.

Another link, http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/sturmvogel/images/ussbs/exiii-dpt1.gif

Specifically, 
http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/sturmvogel/images/ussbs/exiii-dpt1.gif
http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/sturmvogel/images/ussbs/exiii-dpt1.gif


----------



## stona (Oct 19, 2011)

Lovely little 'Gustav' you've got there.

I'm afraid you will always find conflicting information about late war German production and the various types/sub types of Bf109 are a real minefield. As you will be aware even identifying some types can be contentious. I've looked at lumps,bumps,fillers,tails,wheels,various fairings etc until I'm cross-eyed and given myself a head ache!
I admire your attempt to sort it out,I've been trying for years. All you can do is read up as much as you can and at least have an informed opinion,someone will always have a different one. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

Milosh said:


> How many 'much more'? Please note those numbers are for *new build* (ie from scratch) a/c and does not include the numbers re-manufactured using old airframes.


Example: Your first link showed 177 built Mtt-Reg G-10's, the number is closer to double that ( around 350 NEW units W.Nr. allotted 130 000 - 130 600 source: Prien others). Rasmussen on 12o'clock high has unique insight and information about this subject that us mere mortals cannot access.


----------



## kettbo (Oct 19, 2011)

Stona,

Thanks! I have not built a kit in years! 

I began with drawing of the G-14 in Squadron/Signal *Messerschmitt Bf 109 in Action part 2* by Beaman, page 39. Shows three trim tabs on the rudder.

Page 36 shows a late G-6 with tall tail, single tab, and the Erla Haube canopy. Aside from that, the drawings are the same by me. So, unless something comes up, the plan is to install multiple rudder trim tabs. Anyone wanting an earlier (late style) G-6, file/the extra tabs off. For me, shortening even a dozen tails and scribing the angled rudder of the F and common G tail is not a challenge. Betting the market would want a short tail version as fodder for Mustang grazing. Would also want to plug in a streamlined cowl for those wanting an /AS, G-10, or K. I hope to offer choice of canopies for the Gustav hoping not to destroy the model while doing cutting and fitting. I should have been a brain surgeon!

I'll have the camera out this evening, some pics tomorrow of some late 109s from my collection for Thursday viewing.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

Well there where various rudder for the woodtail G-6/G-14. Depending whether it was and AS equipt engine or not.


----------



## vanir (Oct 19, 2011)

I think you'll find rudder variations by regional production and local AS interceptor assembly coincidental. Just saying I've spent time talking with German vets in person and Dietmar Hermann online and the impressions of any orgnisational infrastructure in deployment or equipment from late 44 is largely illusory record keeping as they tell it, and the atmosphere I was trying to create of a very ad hoc and stressed effort governed almost entirely by local circumstances I feel is something important.

It would be more correct to say that: "Regensburg was being supplied with tail units made in nearby Munich, which were this type. Erla however were fitting tail units from this other supplier, who made them a little differently."
Than it is to say, "The G-10 had this tail unit and the G-14 had that one."

That would be incorrect to say, and it is the impression I feel is being translated Ratsel. I mean no offence saying so and certainly wouldn't challenge you in any contest here, I'm making a sincere observation about something that's been nagging at me here.

I'm weighing up my way of looking at it and yours and finding mine more likely.


if I might add and again honestly I mean no offence, I had a drawn out issue some years ago over the special boost in bmw engines on focke wulfs because the documentation at the time didn't mesh with mechanical likelihoods (I'm a hobby race builder), so I distinctly challenged them on the basis that if documentation and likelihood go head to head, likelihoods will generally win. Things like aircraft and war industry are finite measures, they're mechanical in nature and ruled absolutely by convenience and likelihood.

it took years before a small document appeared on a host website, a declassified US Wright-Patterson 1945 evaluation of an Fw-190F-8 with the overboost system, the document specifically describes mechanical details of the system. These perfectly matched my contentions and falsified the popular misconception, which incidentally derived from the combination of translated documents and an ambiguous understanding of mechanical workings by the documentarians, nomenclature is sometimes misleading.

point is likelihoods do trump documented inferrences.


----------



## kettbo (Oct 19, 2011)

OMG!
3 rudders, swell! Glad that I am working in 1/144 scale here, leave a bit for the imigination! Which rudder(s) for those with AS/ vs without?
Will be ordering the Prien book and any others suggested in the next few days. The more I find out, the more there is to find out. I suppose 109 sleuthing could become a serious pursuit!
The drawing in Beaman p 40 shows G-14 with rudder hinge bracket T shaped while G-14/AS has the spear point (>) that you show above.
Drawing in Weal's* Bf 109F/G/K Aces of the Western Front *for tall-tail Gustavs only show a G-10 without tabs and a G-10/R-2 with multiple tabs

edit
after reading VANIR's comment #25 and Ratsel's #24 again
Way too much info on 109 rudders!  
Great that there is this much information out there! Thanks for posting all this guys.
In 1/144 scale the tall tail is difficult to identify much less which shop made it. By necessity it will be somewhat vague in detail.

now I saw that there are larger trim tabs on some of the stabilizers...


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

Mtt-Reg G-10's came w/o tabs. Rudders were IIRC manufactured by a single plant. Hence so many with the same paint schemes, either stenciled or freehand mottled depending what Mtt-Reg/Erla/WNF wanted (we are talking the wooden rudders). Pg.66 of Augsburgs Last Eagles has a good example. A good read would be Late war Bf 109 pictures source - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum or if one chooses the can take a look at my foto-album Messerschmitt Bf 109G-10 pictures by ASYLUM_thirteen - Photobucket. One should find many questions answered if one knows what they are looking for.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 19, 2011)

There really is little consistancy.

The Me 109G6 could come with 
a/ clear view Erla hood.
b/ extended tail yoke for better takeoff and landing
c/ tall tail
d/ it could come in AM (water methanol), AS (enlarged supercharger) and ASM (both)

The Me 109G-14A and Me 109G-14AS standardised water-methanol (MW50)

However the G14 had a larger oil cooler to handle the extra power
but it could either come with or without the tall tail or extended yoke.

The Me 109G10, which came in after the Me 109G14 is really an Me 109G14AS
with a few extra Me 109K4 parts (bigger wheels and wing bulges)

Late model Me 109G10 and Me 109G14AS are virtually indistinguishable.

One thing is for sure, a Me 109K4 had a retractable tail yoke.


----------



## vanir (Oct 19, 2011)

On a lot of K-4 in the field the tail wheel was locked down and the panels closed over, they're visually identical to some G-10 examples.
Some G-14 got G-6 wheels/wing bulges, others got K-4 ones. Same with the G-10. There are plenty of photos of both with interchangeable spec and parts and only engines/plates tell the difference.


When Ratsel says Mtt Regensburg fitted specific tails to their G-10s that's pretty convincing and highly likely, G-10 assembled elsewhere maybe different.


Hey what if we laid out model/subtype fit by regional deployment, and tried to infer regional suppliers, then worked back from there and compared different regions with the most common tail assemblies in service aircraft stationed in that region? Do you think we'd see a correlation in region variation, or an even spread throughout the Reich? Agreed this gets awkward because staffeln were being redeployed regularly and in general retreat to start with, but still some significant variation ought to show at the battlefront if it exists in logistics.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> The Me 109G10, which came in after the Me 109G14 is really an Me 109G14AS
> with a few extra Me 109K4 parts (bigger wheels and wing bulges)



What I found out so far: 

130000 – 130500 ~ Mtt-Regensburg G-10 - small main/long fixed tailwheel
150700 – 151000 ~ Erla G-10
151500 – 152000 ~ Erla G-10
490000 – 490800 ~ Erla G-10 - many were fitted with DB 605/AS - small main/long fixed tailwheel
491000 – 491600 ~ Erla G-10 - small main/long fixed tailwheel
610300 – 610600 ~ WNF G-10
610900 – 611000 ~ WNF G-10
611900 – 612000 ~ WNF G-10
612700 – 613000 ~ WNF G-10
613000 – 613300 ~ WNF G-10
770000 – 770400 ~ WNF G-10 - majority equipped with Rb50/30 camera
770900 – 771000 ~ WNF G-10 - majority equipped with Rb50/30 camera
771000 – 771200 ~ WNF G-10


----------



## kettbo (Oct 20, 2011)

Wow fellas! Such interesting information!
I think I'm becoming absorbed here. The information should make my 1/144 plane a more authentic replica.

But there is more to this...
1/144 scale is actually LARGE for me to build in! For many years I have build aircraft master for RAIDEN MINIATURES in the UK in tiny 1/285 scale!
And if you are thinking there are more GUSTAVS around you are correct.


3x 109s, left to right
we have my Raiden GUSTAV with tall tail and smooth canopy able to be painted as regular or Erla Haube
The G-6/R-6 in JG300 band is a GHQ brand Gustav
the Grau beast is a CinC Bf 109F altered a bit to look like a Gustav in the HohenJager role






Side views
GHQ has a funny side view
CinC is nice but too thick in the fuselage at the front of the tail
Though a crappy paintjob is in progress, the profile is correct







The JG300 unit and my Gustav(far from done with painting by the way) shown with my Kurfurst (bare metal) and a CinC F made to look a lot like a G-10 in the Gray and Green. I modified this aircraft, fitted a tall tail and made the canopy look Erla Haube.






Lots and lots of Hundert Neuns and 190s 






'some' of the American fighters.






I have LOTS of painting to do this winter! Cobbler's children without shoes and a master figure sculptor with unpainted miniatures!

and finally a somewhat out of focus solo shot of the Kurfurst


----------



## stona (Oct 20, 2011)

FWIW my notes have five different rudder types fitted from early 1944 (retrofitted to earlier airframes) onwards. Taking into account sub-types with,for example,different width tabs,I've got a minimum of nine different rudder configurations.
So much for standardisation.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## kettbo (Oct 20, 2011)

Am enjoying Falcon's 109 site. Thanks Ratsel.
I have concluded that with 2 canopy types, 3-4 cowl shapes, short tail and 5 tall rudder configurations, a 'standard' late 109 really isn't standard!


----------



## Milosh (Oct 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Example: Your first link showed 177 built Mtt-Reg G-10's, the number is closer to double that ( around 350 NEW units W.Nr. allotted 130 000 - 130 600 source: Prien others). Rasmussen on 12o'clock high has unique insight and information about this subject that us mere mortals cannot access.



If you have primary reference material Ratsel on this ~350 number why don't you post it in the thread so the spreadsheet can be updated.


----------



## vanir (Oct 21, 2011)

Me too, I kind of got awed a bit as this thread got going. You guys have left me in the dust.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 21, 2011)

Milosh, its still a work in progress. Time consuming to track all the Mtt-Reg W.Nr.'s with a lack of factory records. But it will get done. Even fotos of the elusive Mtt-Reg built G-10s are very hard to come by. You can see the fotos I have collected here. 

In terms of standardizing parts that was almost accomplished with the G-10/K-4's. G-10's came with the DB 605D (save for a few very rare Elra built G-10/AS), and rudders either with or without trim tabs. But again, different plants had different ideas, and with these being produced in late 44', you get what you get.


----------



## kettbo (Oct 21, 2011)

I am considering completion of the GUSTAV in G/AS or G-10 with refined bulges vs earlier unit with MG131 boils.

Ratsel, interesting pics in your gallery. Thanks you for posting the link.
Noted a few of the 109s in Allied 'attire'
Reminded me of the other thread here of planes in Captured Markings...
Are there German comparative flight tests, Eric Brown type, of say P-51B/C or D vs Gustavs?
Not trying to derail my thread here, just on my mind at the moment.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 21, 2011)

So why not post in the thread what you have Ratsel.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 21, 2011)

kettbo said:


> I am considering completion of the GUSTAV in G/AS or G-10 with refined bulges vs earlier unit with MG131 boils.
> 
> Ratsel, interesting pics in your gallery. Thanks you for posting the link.
> Noted a few of the 109s in Allied 'attire'
> ...


the Me 109G-5/AS, G-6/AS, G-10, K-4's streamlined cowls are refered to as 'Type 100' or 'Type 110' cowls. The 110 being asymetrical. Dunno if Eric Brown said anything specific about the 109 vs the P-51, but Eric Brown, once said the Bf-109's lines always brought the adjective "_sinister_" to mind. A lot of pilots, both Allied and Axis, have an opinion of the 109. Several Luftwaffe aces (Eric Hartmann included) preferred the 109 over Focke-Wulf's design. One Allied P-47 pilot once commented that "_In all the dogfights I was in, I never saw the pilot of a 109 lose control. I saw a lot of Fw-190's spin out, hit trees, or suddenly stall. Never the Messerschmitt_." The Luftwaffe pilots I've personally spoken with, Herr Theo Nau (3 kills) Herr Horst Petzschler (26 kills) told me the Me 109 was a "_very forgiving airplane to fly_". Herr Nau who dogfighted with P-47s said that could not "_manuver_" with the 109, and Herr Petzschler said the P-51 could not "_Dive_" with the 109. He also told me that the one time he looked at the Air speed indicator in a dive, it was pinned at 800kph (end of gage).


----------



## kettbo (Oct 21, 2011)

just wondering of the Luftwaffe evals of the captured Allied fighters have survived. Some 'test flight' data German style vs same tests on German planes like on Kurfurst's site.
Then again, would the German pilots and ground crew get the most out of the Allied aircraft?

Interesting info from the German pilots Ratsel. Curious if these combats were low, medium, or high altitude.

I have tried a few times to make miniatures rules for WW2 air combat. Who climbed faster, turned tighter....just too much conflicting info. Too much "it depends"
Saddened that even in a 2004 book, saw G-6 speed listed as 389mph


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 22, 2011)

kettbo said:


> Interesting info from the German pilots Ratsel. Curious if these combats were low, medium, or high altitude.



The one story Herr Nau told me was from 400m to 1000m most of the time. Herr Petzschler was from 8km IIRC (his G-6/AS high altitude intercepter). The fastest level flights for the 109 will be with a slight nose down attitude.


----------



## kettbo (Nov 7, 2011)

The antenna/mast is that below the left wing on the later planes, Moranne Mast The near vertical mounting is kinda strange.
What equipment was this for?
Would a G-6 ever have this? Would this be part of the G-14 upgrade/new build?
I see the antenna on the G-10, K-4, a plane identified as Gi14 in one pic


----------



## stona (Nov 7, 2011)

The underwing Morane antenna is the transmission antenna for the send/receive part of the Fug 16 ZY radio system. The wire antenna,from fuselage/mast to fin is the receiving antenna. The loop antenna is also associated with this system and is a homing or direction finding antenna. It was fixed,some modellers seem to think that it rotated!
The exact dimensions of the Morane antenna can be had from the allied report on a G-14,W.Nr. 413601.

"Radio: FuG 16 ZY fitted. "Y" aerial mounted on underside of the port wing, 7 ft. 2 in. from wing root and 9 in. back from the leading edge. The aerial itself, which consists of a tapering streamlined light alloy tube 24 1/2 in. long with a semi-flexible stranded wire tip 12 1/2 in. long projects through a "Plexiglass" disc set in the wing surface."

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Denniss (Nov 7, 2011)

The FuG 16 ZY was also fitted to some earlier Bf 109, those were designated G-4y or G-6y. They were used to direct their own air units to the enemy groups as they could be tracked/identified with ground-based radar.


----------



## kettbo (Nov 8, 2011)

Leads me to ask this question then....
If the FuG 16 upgrade is probably the most important thing than makes a G-14 a G-14 as not all got the MW-50 (though on paper this was supposed to happen), shouldn't any G-6 so fitted then be ID'd as a G-14? Or is this a 'on a certain month, if you had the equipment, bam, you now have a G-14' type deal?
Basically, if it looks like a G-6, has the mg 131 boils, probably has mw 50, has the Morane Mast, then it is a G-14?
Perhaps I missed something earlier on the radio install...
Seems all the G-10 and K-4 had the Morane mast

Acknowledged on the G-4y and G-6y earlier.

Factory MW 50, gauge in the instrument panel
Field converted to MW 50, bolt on gauge

I am learning that on the late 109s, far to many exceptions to any rule.


----------



## stona (Nov 8, 2011)

The early G-14s,which were not produced in homogenous blocks but rather inserted into G-6 production blocks were identical to the late G-6s. It is really a matter of nomenclature. The G-14 was simply a failed attempt to standardise the evolution of the G-6 into a new dash number. I could write a list of which changes a G-14 was supposed to incorporate but not all of them did. 
The RLM only really got a standard fighter wih the K-4 but this is probably because,with the exception of a handful produced by Erla,they all came from one plant!
When did a G-6 become a G-14? When someone wrote G-14 on the production schedule. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## kettbo (Nov 8, 2011)

this late 109 id is more difficult than finding an honest politician

So probably easiest to build tall tail Gustav with boils and front canopy framing, leave the outfitting for the end user (my 1/144 project)h


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 8, 2011)

Most Ost front G-6's/14's/10's took out the FuG 16 ZY and its related components. As it wasn't very reliable in the east. It also saved weight.


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2011)

"Most Ost front G-6's/14's/10's took out the FuG 16 ZY and its related components."
What did they replace it with?

"As it wasn't very reliable in the east."
Why so?

"It also saved weight."
So whatever they replaced it with was much lighter?

I have to ask as it isn't something I've considered before!

I can see why the DF (Z) component might not be so useful in the East,despite being able to home in on a signal at a range of 100 miles at 10,000 feet, but they surely still needed VHF wireless communications. An allied report claimed.

"The radius of the transmitter when communicating with the FuG16 receiver is from 45 miles at 100 feet to 180 miles at 25000 feet for R/T."

Cheers
Steve


----------



## vanir (Nov 9, 2011)

The way I heard it they didn't build ground station antennas for them too far east, mostly in western/southern reich. Ostfront and Süd Ost didn't need those radios (likewise they'd be useless in the Med). As far as I know many Hungarian G-14s were just a straight late type G-6, their build quality was higher than Mtt G-14s but most had straight Nov43 DB601A-1 engines on B4 and ETC racks standardised, most often with an SC250 or 2/4 SC50 (G-10 were more likely to carry an SC500 but have better rough field performance under loads).
Luftwaffe doctrine had formally become army support by this stage. Fighter groups could be tied to field units the same way the stuka used to be in 1940. Most fighters built from 1944 were intended at the factory to be nothing more than bomb trucks, in some cases you can run your fingers under panel gaps as far as finishing quality goes. Carry bombs, drop the bombs, run away, that was the maxim for most Me-109 production around then. If Hitler could've he'd have made every fighter in the luftwaffe carry a bomb, no exceptions.


All these circumstantial elements, they're contributors to the very confusing nature of late 109s.


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2011)

vanir said:


> The way I heard it they didn't build ground station antennas for them too far east, mostly in western/southern reich. Ostfront and Süd Ost didn't need those radios (likewise they'd be useless in the Med).



Yes,and I can see why the DF (homing) component of the system would be redundant in the East without the infrastructure to support it. The FuG 16 ZY was a sort of all in one system and some component parts could be omitted,as was the case on the Ju88G-1 which the Luftwaffe delivered to RAF Woodbridge by mistake. The DF loop antenna was present but not connected to anything. 
I don't see how a unit of any type could operate without radio communications. Is anyone seriously suggesting that these aircraft operated without radios? That I find hard to believe. If they were changed for something else what was it and where on earth did the units get them from?
I'm hoping Ratsel will clarify as I really don't have time at the moment to start investigating this.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## vanir (Nov 9, 2011)

No no, I didn't mean they operated without radios. Simply when I read a Luftwaffe pilot story about having his G-6 upgraded "to G-14 standard" he talked about a radio change, it was for a navigation system. Aircraft in Hungary didn't need it. I'm trying to fill in the blanks myself, never really looked up much about the radios and nav.
I just remember things pilots said, like Porkryshin mentioning the P-39 had three radio sets. Russian radios were far simpler, if even fitted. In 1941 the bulk of Frontal Aviation still preferred hand signals, even when radios were fitted they weren't used often until it became orders from about Oct42.

Just stuff I read, don't really know that much about it.


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2011)

I think we're in the same boat Vanir! It has never ocurred to me that a frontline unit would or could alter the radio installation on the aircraft they received. They left the factory with the FuG 16 as standard and presumably that's how they were accepted by the Luftwaffe (BAL), so I'm interested to understand where,by whom and for what the FuG 16s were changed. I can't believe they operated without radio communications.
Ratsel wrote:
"Most Ost front G-6's/14's/10's took out the FuG 16 ZY and its related components."
Which has piqued my interest.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Nov 10, 2011)

I can't find anything definitive. I can only say how I understand the system. Maybe someone will know more...not difficult!
The 'Z' system,'Zieflug' or directional flight was a system of homing which allowed the fighter to fly towards a beacon. If the beacons were absent in the East then this element of the system would be redundant,
The 'Y' system,'Y-jagd verfahren' is difficult to translate but let's say Y-fighter system. It is a transponder system which enables a ground station to determine the distance and bearing of the fighter. This was more important for nightfighter operations and again,without the ground based infrastructure,may have been redundant in the East.
The problem is that the FuG 16 was also the radio telecommunications system for the pilot and,with add ons,was an all in one box. Remove that and you have a radioless fighter. Now you can remove the Z and Y elements but not I think the entire system. As I said above the pilots needed radios.
Here's the radio installation.







Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 10, 2011)

Geez Louis where do you find this stuff ?!?! :/


----------



## stona (Nov 10, 2011)

LOL,112 pages in here!






A struggle for my limited german and electronics.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## kettbo (Nov 10, 2011)

Awesome!


----------



## kettbo (Aug 20, 2012)

Just an update. In the last several months I bought
Prien/Rodeike *Messerschmitt Bf 109 F,G &K *
Radinger/Otto *Bf 109 F-K*
Aero Detail 5* Messerschmitt Bf109G* in Japanese and English, really nice!
I have been through the books many times along with 
Weal's OSPREY booklet *Bf 109F/G/K Aces of the Western Front* and 
Bowman's *P-47 Thunderbolt vs Bf 109G/K*
and *Squadron Messerschmitt Bf 109 in action Part 2*

these are my conclusions based on what I have read and some info from this site. Please feel free to provide critical commentary!

*Bf 109G-14:*

summer of 1944 new build though merely a Bf 109G6/U2 standardized as G-14 with the MW50, FuG16zy and DF loop of later G-6 planes 
o stands to reason that earlier G-6 planes rebuilt would be outfitted to this G-14 standard
o either canopy, short standard tail or tall tail in several configurations 
o more of the G-14/AS then G-6/AS as a percentage of the production, refined cowl for those with /AS or /ASM equipment
o more /U4 with 30mm nose cannon fitted though 20% of production seems to be my somewhat educated conclusion
o boosted low altitude speed of ca 350mph and high altitude speed ca 400mph, better top speed at altitude for /AS aircraft 420mph territory(?)

*Bf109G-10*

o most would have tall tail, Erla canopy and large rectangular bulges on the wing tops and lower nose lumps
o few have earlier canopy, some had short tail, some had the smaller wing bulges for tire clearance, tall or short tail wheel
o several refined cowl patterns, several rudder configs
o some fitted with the DB 605 AS when the DB 605 D was not available, Prien calls this Bf109G-10/AS (though I believe this is in dispute)
o not clear on construction status: 
rebuilt planes to the current standard to emulate the K-4 per Prien. I believe a modest amount of new-build (believe I saw this here on the forum) 
o standard fit was the nose 30mm mk 108 though many had the 20mm fitted
o speeds of ca 350 at low altitude and approximately 425mph at altitude clean configuration


----------



## stona (Aug 20, 2012)

G-14.
Early ones fitted with DB 605 A engines which makes them identical to earlier G-6s. It's just a matter of nomenclature.
Erla built G-14s all had the tall tail. WNF built ones had the short tail. Early Messerschmitt built ones also had the short tail though some had the longer tail wheel. Later ones would normally have the tall tail.
Do we want to get into which ones had the larger oil tank and/or larger supercharger intake (like the G-10)? Can 'o' worms!
Something to look out for is the protruding battery cover on the rear cockpit wall which is a dead giveaway that the aircraft is MW 50 equipped. This applies to the G-10 as well.
Some G-14/AS were retrofitted with the DB 605 D engine. Does this now make them a G-10 ?
All G-14/AS had tall tails but early ones did nothave the "chin bulges" over the larger cam shaft covers. Some may have had the larger main wheels and wing bulges.

G-10
DB 605 D engine and MW 50 except for a small block (about 50) with the DB 605 ASM. Tall tail. Larger oil cooler and larger oil tank. Cold start access hatch therefore in higher position,matching position of crank hole.

There's loads more which is why people write books about them !

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Aug 20, 2012)

A list of Bf 109 Neubau	compiled by William Medcalf 

Subtype	Factory	1944 1945 Totals
Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	
G 5	Erla	50	63	56	6	2	*	*	*	60	*	*	*	*	*	*	= 237
G 5/R2	Erla	Scheduled-not built = 0
G 6	MttR	430	309	135	343	550	659	662	260	242	50	53	109	1	9	*	= 3812
G 6	Erla	291	270	203	200	319	300	305	*	*	106	295	*	64	*	*	= 2353
G 6	WNF	Scheduled-not built = 0
G 6/R2	WNF	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	* 130	*	2	*	= 132
G 6/U2	Erla	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	38	3	1	1	*	*	*	= 43
G 6/U4	WNF	119	51	303	404	118	144	240	33	40	14	*	*	*	*	= 1466
G 6/U4	Györ	*	*	*	*	*	*	16	15	*	*	*	*	*	* = 31
G 6AS	MttR	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	1	*	*	*	*	*	*	= 1
Ga 6	Györ	42	6	50	14	17	17	30	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	* = 176
G 8	WNF	*	16	57	39	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	= 112
G 8/R5	WNF	*	*	*	*	59	110	111	208	92	77	21	67	*	63	107	= 915
G 8/R5	GYör	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	29	2	*	*	*	*	*	= 31
G 8/U3	WNF	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	1	*	*	*	*	= 1
G 10	Erla *	*	*	*	*	*	*	1	52	279	67	103	38	4	= 544
G 10	MttR *	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	4	108	62	3 = 177
G 10/R6	Erla	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	49	191	269	178	284	= 971
G 10/U4	WNF	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	129	132	95	= 356
G 14	MttR *	*	*	*	*	*	440	144	30	59	11	1	157	47	= 889
G 14	Erla *	*	*	*	*	*	232	472	339	25	*	78	*	*	= 1146
G 14/U4	WNF	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	59	148	219	98	56	11	2 = 593
G 14/U4	GYör	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	32	*	*	*	*	* = 32
G 14/U4	KöB	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	9	20	*	*	* = 29
G 14AS	Mttr	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	303	379	101	203	211	62	11	= 1270
G 14AS	Erla	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	95	9	3	*	*	*	*	= 107
K 2	Erla	Scheduled-not built 0
K 2	WNF	Scheduled-not built 0
K 3	Erla	Scheduled-not built 0
K 3/R2	Erla	Scheduled-not built 0
K 4	MttR *	*	*	*	*	*	*	15	293	221	325	338	233	168 = 1593
Totals	932	715	804	1006	1065	1230	1043	1374	1718	1793	1558	1147	1221	876	716	= 17017
Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar


----------



## kettbo (Aug 21, 2012)

so Milosh, 2048 new-build G-10s? So how did Prien miss this when he said the G-10s were rebuilds? Prien p158
or does having two data plates mean it counts as a new aircraft vs a rebuild keeping one data plate
he mentions production batches in the same paragraph

You posted the link earlier, missed the significance, thx.


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2012)

During the transition from G-K series 118 G-10s were built by Messerschmitt Regensburg,all new build by the way.
The way they were built says much for the state of German aircraft production at this time,November 1944. They were built with whatever was available. Some had G-6 wings and smaller (660v160) mainwheels and some had the K-4 wing with the larger (660x 190) mainwheels. They had whatever length tail wheel was available. They had various engines,typically DB 605 AS or DB 605 N.Some got MW 50 boost,but not all. Even the armament varied depending on what was available,MG 151 or MK 108. These aircraft were assembled all over Eastern Bavaria and maintaining series details seems to have been a very low priority.
This all happens in a batch of only 118 aircraft!

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 21, 2012)

kettbo said:


> so Milosh, 2048 new-build G-10s? So how did Prien miss this when he said the G-10s were rebuilds? Prien p158
> or does having two data plates mean it counts as a new aircraft vs a rebuild keeping one data plate
> he mentions production batches in the same paragraph
> 
> You posted the link earlier, missed the significance, thx.



Prien has admitted there is several errors in his old 109 book. New info has come to light since published.


----------



## kettbo (Aug 22, 2012)

maybe I could send you my book and you pen in the corrections? 
appreciate your comments....

OK, is there a newer book that shows all the current known info?

Some of this research will appear on many of the Bf109G miniatures I am preparing and painting. Want to make them historically random! Working up for some 9th AF P-47s etc vs the LW over Western France throughout the summer of 1944. Not many games feature low altitude opns. Should be interesting brawls ahead


----------



## kettbo (Sep 4, 2012)

Prien pg 149 says Bf109G14s built in batches 780 000 and later may all be G14/AS.
Any idea when this would have been during 1944? Aug? SEPT?

I have seen it written somewhere that the MW50 tank or GM1 tank was not removable. I'm thinking NOT SO, pretty sure it comes out somehow


----------



## stona (Sep 4, 2012)

The first batch in that range (780319-780394) was started in July 1944 and the run went until effectively the end,March 1945.

According to my list in Peter Schmoll's production summary ther are a few G-6/AS in the range.

Never thought about removing the MW 50 tank. I can't see any easy way of getting it out,I'll see what I can find.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## kettbo (Sep 4, 2012)

Not so much about removing the tank just that building the aircraft around the tank seems an odd concept
Probably a real pain in the rump but I'd think the seat comes out, maybe some other stuff, then the tank goes in.
Also, was not MW50 installed in earlier planes during refits/refurb/major repairs

I'll keep looking on that thought about the 780 000 and later being all Bf109G14/AS
With Messerschmitts, I'm finding new info all the time. Think I may have the answer to my question


from Wm Wedcalf's list of Neubau posted by Milosh pg 4 of this thread

Ja Fe Ma Ap Ma Jun Jul Au Sep Oct Nov Dec J45 F45 M45

G 6 MttR	430	309	135	343	550	659	662	260	242	50	53	109	1	9	*	= 3812
G 6 Erla	291	270	203	200	319	300	305	*	*	106	295	*	64	*	*	= 2353

G 14 MttR *	*	*	*	*	*	440	144	30	59	11	1	157	47	= 889
G 14 Erla *	*	*	*	*	*	232	472	339	25	*	78	*	*	= 1146


G 14AS	Mttr	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	303	379	101	203	211	62	11	= 1270
G 14AS	Erla	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	95	9	3	*	*	*	*	= 107

o Based on Medcalf's numbers, probably better to say Bf109G14/AS were built far more frequently than Bf109G14 with /AS production starting SEPT 1944
o It makes sense to me that most of the Bf109G14AS production would be sent to the West and Defense of the Reich where combat was generally at higher altitudes. Am I correct? I am aware most of the LW 'moved East' in January 1945
o I also note in the later months, both Bf109G6 and Bf109G14 production.....I would have thought the G6 would have been suspended. Yet I see ERLA cranked-out 295 G6s in Nov 44. I am aware late G6 = G14 but this really does not make sense. Or did Erla simply not get the Memo saying 'change the data plate to read G14.'


----------



## stona (Sep 4, 2012)

780666-780669 G-6/AS
780785-780793 G-6/AS
781117-781207 Mixed G-14 and G-14/AS
782340-782344 " " " "
787067 G-14.

Some of the anomalies were completed at outlying facilities and maybe whatever was available was fitted. For example 787067 was completed at Micheldorf/Cham. The fuselage probably came from Bodenwohr and the wings from Regensburg. The engine supply at the time it was assembled in Feb/Mar 1945 was uncertain to put it mildly. 

The GM-1 system was earlier fitted to some aircraft (which I'd have to look up) with the intention of converting it to MW 50. 

It's always possible to do anything if you are prepared to dismantle the aircraft enough!


----------



## kettbo (Sep 4, 2012)

stona said:


> 780666-780669 G-6/AS
> 780785-780793 G-6/AS
> 781117-781207 Mixed G-14 and G-14/AS
> 782340-782344 " " " "
> ...




OK, where did you get that information on those work numbers? Always interested in expanding my library....


----------



## stona (Sep 4, 2012)

The list is from Peter Schmoll's "Nest of Eagles- Messerschmitt production and flight testing at Regensburg 1936-1945". ISBN 978-1-906537-12-8

He produces one of the most complete lists of werknummern and Stammkenzeichen for Regensburg produced Bf 109s. 

It was originally published,as two books and in German,in 2002 and then updated and combined into one book in 2004. I think the first English translation,by Ted Oliver,dates from 2004.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## kettbo (Sep 7, 2012)

added Nest of Eagles to my Amazon Book want-list


----------



## kettbo (Mar 6, 2014)

I got to spend some time with this Bf109G-6 in Washington DC last week. I got to thinking on the flight home if this was equipped with the 20mm or 30mm nose cannon. Then I got to thinking about what BALLPARK percentage of the Bf 109Gs got the Mk 108 30mm engine cannon. I recall the percentage was small but it increased from the summer of 1943. The Mk 108 was supposed to be standard on the Bf109K-4 yet I know some of them came with 20mm nose weapons.

Bf 109G6/U4
Would 10% in mid 43 be off?
or something like this????
15% late 43
20% early 44
25% early summer 44
30% late summer 44
35% fall 44
40% late 44

Would the near identical Bf 109G-14 have a greater percentage of 30mm cannon being fitted?


----------



## Denniss (Mar 6, 2014)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bf_109#Produktion

Look for production numbers of the /U4 variant, available for G-6/-14/-10. The /U4 were only produced by WNF, mass deliveries of the G-6/U4 started in late 43. Of the K-4 had about 95-100% had the MK 108, due to shortages some were supposed to be delivered with the MG 151/20.

According to en wiki your 109 is a Bf 109 G-6 trop 160163, KT + LL of 3./JG 4, marked "Yellow 4", ex-USAAF FE-496 "White 2"


----------



## kettbo (Mar 6, 2014)

Thank you Denniss!

Looks like 1663 Bf109G-6/U4 and 32 G-14/U4 by Nov 44 with another 105 or so G-14/U4 from DEC 44-APR 45
Not anywhere near the quantity available that I had supposed. I will try to sort out the ratios of 20mm equipped vs 30 mm equipped.


This leads to another question, with the somewhat limited quantity made, where were they assigned? Special Staffeln or scattered among the general population?
Any data on if the /U4 planes had special usage would be appreciated

Noted the Wiki.de site has far more data and better tables then the Wiki in English.
edit: Some missing data on the Wiki.de chart. It shows no makers but in the total a high number
this will effect the percentage of U4 planes
G-14 2.022 
G-14AS 1.306


----------



## Denniss (Mar 7, 2014)

Late-war data is incomplete so a breakdown by manufacturer and type wasn't really possible.
Don't forget the ~400 G-10/U4.

The /U4 variant were only produced in Vienna (and Györ) so it's safe to assume rhe missing 550 G-14/U4 were built there


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 10, 2014)

Gents,
Keep it up! My level of arcane 109 knowledge has increased exponentially! I had no idea what an adhoc assembly process they were using at the end. It makes sense with around the clock bombing, de-centralized construction, the ever changing front line and the constant "demand" for more.
Cheers,
Biff

PS: How the hell did they see out of that thing with the standard canopy (all the girders)!


----------



## kettbo (Mar 13, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> PS: How the hell did they see out of that thing with the standard canopy (all the girders)!



They saw well-enough to shot down scads of enemies even through 1945 with the regular canopies

Now looking at comparative roll rates. Found a chart here on this Forum. Looking at near sea level and 5000' performance for Luftwaffe vs US 9th TAF Normandy/N France


----------



## Milosh (Mar 13, 2014)

These are neubau

G 6/U4 WNF 1466
G 6/U4 Györ 31

G 14/U4 WNF 593
G 14/U4 GYör 32
G 14/U4 KöB 29

G 10/U4 WNF 356

from a thread posted on the 12 o'clock board from German documentation. It has monthly production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 13, 2014)

kettbo said:


> They saw well-enough to shot down scads of enemies even through 1945 with the regular canopies



George,
I totally agree! It's incredible to me that during the transition from open to enclosed cockpits the engineers didn't get the word visual look out (lose sight, lose the fight). I've sat in a P-38 and thought the same thing, although I think the forward visability in it's better than the Me-109.
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## kettbo (Mar 17, 2014)

even the heavy framing on the 109 and P-38 canopies are great compared to vision block(s) or sights in an armored fighting vehicle!
think about THAT for a few seconds. you'll never work harder with your crew and wingman to keep all the blind spots covered. Things really go to hell when the vehicle commander goes from head-up to buttoned-up.

I like the post war canopies on the 109 variants.

Milosh, thanks for the production numbers! I'll have to do the math for what the percentage is, total vs /U4.


----------



## Aozora (Mar 17, 2014)

Bf 109G-10/U4 WNF Diana:











From: Luftwaffe Over Czech Territory 1945 Part II - Messerschmitt Bf-109G-10/U4 Production and Operational Service: Aleš Janda and Tomáš Poruba, pages 6-7

118 G-10s were built at MTT Regensburg, but were fitted with MG 151/20s or Mk 108s depending on what was available:






A major problem with the Mk 108 fitted in the 109 is that it jammed easily when subjected to g-forces, although the shells were destructive :








BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> Keep it up! My level of arcane 109 knowledge has increased exponentially! I had no idea what an adhoc assembly process they were using at the end. It makes sense with around the clock bombing, de-centralized construction, the ever changing front line and the constant "demand" for more.
> Cheers,
> Biff



There were also problems with the wooden tail surfaces, and the MW 50 and overboost burnt out the pistons:






from: Nest of Eagles: Messerschmitt Production and Flight-Testing at Regensburg 1936-1945: Peter Schmoll, pages 74-76.


----------



## kettbo (Mar 19, 2014)

Thanks a bunch Aozora!
373mph Boosted at S/L.
Most of the WW2 air battle board and miniature games cover all the altitudes (try to at least). The West Front games are BoB or feature more of a Attack on the Reich theme. I am an enthusiast of the US 9th AF vs the LW over Northern France, Normandy onward. This is overlooked in gaming circles. I am working on a 'house rules' that will be tested, hopefully see print some day.

I have several game mats. The players will get 'maps' and have to ID objectives on the mats from their maps ultimately. Most games have far-too-perfect intel. Anyway, trying to have a fun, simple, quick game that is accurate


----------



## kettbo (Mar 19, 2014)

thank you for the extra information!

373 boosted on the deck for the G-10. Very impressive! While a bit too late for Normandy and N France, still very good information.

I am working on house rules for a 9th AF vs the LW over Normandy for my miniatures. I have been tabulating low altitude performance; s/l-500 ft, 5000 ft and 10,000 foot for the game. I am working on the gunnery/airframe strength/ damage models currently.

I was the figure sculptor for the Bf109G below, 1/285 scale


----------



## Denniss (Mar 19, 2014)

The burnt pistons in the DB 605D were cured in late 44, they changed the firing order, lost 50 of the 1850 PS and the engine ran fine.


----------



## kettbo (Mar 22, 2014)

perhaps some good reading to be found here
G.A.F. [German Air force, Luftwaffe] and the Invasion of Normandy 1944


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 23, 2014)

Aozora said:


>



i love the guy pulling on the prop.....the mechanic would probably had had a coronary had he seen that.


----------



## kettbo (Sep 18, 2014)

searching for something else this morning, saw this

K4=G10 
Guy was asking if Bf109G-10 and Bf109K were the same (obviously not!)
I figured this would be a good place to park the linkie, some good stuff found


----------



## stona (Sep 18, 2014)

Well one of their experts wrote:

'The 'moter' in moterkanone doesn't mean the weapon was engine mounted.'

When in fact it means firing through the engine/spinner, it doesn't refer to any property of the weapon. It doesn't mean mounted above the engine as in the cowl guns if that's what he was alluding to. The abbreviation MK as in MK 103 stands for 'Maschinenkanone' which may have caused confusion.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 18, 2014)

Not 'moterkanone', but 'motorkanone'?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Sep 18, 2014)

Did anyone else notice in the scan of the Peter Schmoll book: * "Peter Duttmann, a pilot with II/JG52 still 
Possesses at writing a data sheet for the DB605D which could with MW50 injection produce 2200 hp."*

That would suggest 2.2 ata boost. Clearly the DB 605 had life beyond even the 1.98 ata boost that gave about 2000hp and that was fleetingly used at the end of the war and withdrawn or dropped to 1.9 ata pending solution of problems.


----------



## stona (Sep 19, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Not 'moterkanone', but 'motorkanone'?



Indeed, but that's not what 'MiloMorai' wrote. 

Steve


----------



## kettbo (Sep 19, 2014)

there was some junk in that thread but also some good info


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 19, 2014)

Thanks for the link, George.


----------

