Bayerische Flugzeugwerke
Formed in Augsburg in 1926. Willy Messerschmitt worked for them as a designer.
The 109 was designed by Willy when he worked for BFW. In 1938 the name changed from Bayrische Flugzeugwerke to Messerchmitt AG.
ME 109 or BF 109?
- Thread starter Camarogenius
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke
Formed in Augsburg in 1926. Willy Messerschmitt worked for them as a designer.
The 109 was designed by Willy when he worked for BFW. In 1938 the name changed from Bayrische Flugzeugwerke to Messerchmitt AG.
The very cutting foreword by Bill Gunston for the 1989 reprint of the 45/46 Jane's makes it clear - Bf 109...
However, I found this on the net...
So which is it? Bf or Me 109?
However, I found this on the net...
So which is it? Bf or Me 109?
The 109 lair piece is better. The prefix 'Bf' or 'Me' were NOT assigned by the manufacturer but by the RLM. In all official communication with the RLM and in all publications by the RLM the form 'Bf 109' should have been used and was in almost all such contemporary documents that I have seen.
Within the Luftwaffe, Messerschmitt AG and in German newsreels and propaganda films the prefix 'Me' was certainly used (as that article shows) and the two prefixes 'Bf' and ' Me' were interchangeable. The prefix 'Me' was certainly in common usage generally in Germany. Messerschmitt AG was challenged by the RLM about the use of the prefix 'Me' and in one particularly snotty letter the RLM told Messercschmitt that any correspondence about the Bf 110 which used the prefix 'Me' would be ignored.
Whilst I agree that both are correct today, I would qualify that by saying at the time, as far as the RLM which was paying for these aircraft was concerned, only the prefix 'Bf' was correct or allowed.
Another bone of contention is always the spacing between the prefix, type, sub type and dash number. Again, the system most usually seen in anything promulgated or published by the RLM would look like this; Bf 109 E-7. Unfortunately many search systems on internet sites do not recognise this because of the gaps and consequently versions with incorrect spacing are common today.
Cheers
Steve
Within the Luftwaffe, Messerschmitt AG and in German newsreels and propaganda films the prefix 'Me' was certainly used (as that article shows) and the two prefixes 'Bf' and ' Me' were interchangeable. The prefix 'Me' was certainly in common usage generally in Germany. Messerschmitt AG was challenged by the RLM about the use of the prefix 'Me' and in one particularly snotty letter the RLM told Messercschmitt that any correspondence about the Bf 110 which used the prefix 'Me' would be ignored.
Whilst I agree that both are correct today, I would qualify that by saying at the time, as far as the RLM which was paying for these aircraft was concerned, only the prefix 'Bf' was correct or allowed.
Another bone of contention is always the spacing between the prefix, type, sub type and dash number. Again, the system most usually seen in anything promulgated or published by the RLM would look like this; Bf 109 E-7. Unfortunately many search systems on internet sites do not recognise this because of the gaps and consequently versions with incorrect spacing are common today.
Cheers
Steve
I've seen a post war interview of Willi where he speaks proudly of the "Me109" and, offhand, I remember at least two orders the RLM issued to stop (dammit!) using ME with the 109 and 110. I believe the internal technical documents (both RLM and manufacturer) describe the aircraft as the 8-109 (GL/C number 8 for powered aircraft), at least my 109G-10 flight controls and cooling flaps rigging blueprint* (reprint from NASM) ID's as for the "8-108G-10, G-10/U-4, G-10/R-2, G-10/R-6".
Didn't both Hartman and Galland use the Me109 designation (at least post war)?
*The reason I have this blueprint copy is it shows the never used aileron flettner tab (boost tab) that occupied the inboard 38% of the aileron trailing edge. At least one aircraft was found with these tabs (a K) but the linkage was missing and the tabs riveted in a fixed position.
Didn't both Hartman and Galland use the Me109 designation (at least post war)?
*The reason I have this blueprint copy is it shows the never used aileron flettner tab (boost tab) that occupied the inboard 38% of the aileron trailing edge. At least one aircraft was found with these tabs (a K) but the linkage was missing and the tabs riveted in a fixed position.
Yes. In almost every interview I've seen with ex-Luftwaffe pilots they use the Me (as in "emee") prefix for the 109. I'm struggling to recall one using Bf !
"Emee" was certainly in common spoken use during the war. Whatever the RLM stipulated it is not worth getting over excited about the use of 'Me' today.
Even Messerschmitt AG did get it correct (at least as far as the RLM was concerned). It published the parts lists for the type (ersatzteil-liste) and the ones I have for the E,F and G all use the prefix 'Bf'.
Cheers
Steve
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The aircraft that carried the Bf (Bayerische Flugzeugwerke) prefix, were:
Bf108
Bf109
Bf110
Bf161
Bf162
Bf163
However, people saying "it doesn't matter" miss the fact that the RLM would have never allowed the "163" designation to be used twice unless there was clear distinction between Bf and Me.
Case in point, the Me163 (Komet) versus the Bf163 (similar to the Fi156)
There are several instances in the RLM naming convention, where the designations were changed, such as Blohm und Voss, designated HA for their subsidiary Hamburger Flugzeugbau. Ultimately, it became BV.
The same goes for Flugzeugbau Halle (Fh) which became Siebel Flugzeugwerke KG (Si).
Then it gets even more complicated as some variants of a design were modified and then carried a prefix based on the designer or factory's name...like the Ho.IX (Ho229) being commonly referred to Go229 for Gotha's involvement in the project. Dr. Lippisch's projects saw the DFS or Me projects given the designation of Li and Kurt Tank's projects carrying the prefix Ta.
Bf108
Bf109
Bf110
Bf161
Bf162
Bf163
However, people saying "it doesn't matter" miss the fact that the RLM would have never allowed the "163" designation to be used twice unless there was clear distinction between Bf and Me.
Case in point, the Me163 (Komet) versus the Bf163 (similar to the Fi156)
There are several instances in the RLM naming convention, where the designations were changed, such as Blohm und Voss, designated HA for their subsidiary Hamburger Flugzeugbau. Ultimately, it became BV.
The same goes for Flugzeugbau Halle (Fh) which became Siebel Flugzeugwerke KG (Si).
Then it gets even more complicated as some variants of a design were modified and then carried a prefix based on the designer or factory's name...like the Ho.IX (Ho229) being commonly referred to Go229 for Gotha's involvement in the project. Dr. Lippisch's projects saw the DFS or Me projects given the designation of Li and Kurt Tank's projects carrying the prefix Ta.
It did matter to the RLM at the time, something made clear by its response to incorrect usage by the manufacturers. I don't think that it's worth getting over excited about today.
As for me, I will ALWAYS write Bf 109 and Me 262, which are the correct RLM prefixes. I will use the correct RLM prefixes for all other Luftwaffe aircraft.
Cheers
Steve
As for me, I will ALWAYS write Bf 109 and Me 262, which are the correct RLM prefixes. I will use the correct RLM prefixes for all other Luftwaffe aircraft.
Cheers
Steve
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I agree and always try and use the proper prefixes/designations.
I've been in conversations where people referred to the A-36 as a P-51 or an FM-2 as a F4F.
While these may be extreme examples, it makes the case that trying to be as accurate as possible can avoid possible confusion in a conversation.
I've been in conversations where people referred to the A-36 as a P-51 or an FM-2 as a F4F.
While these may be extreme examples, it makes the case that trying to be as accurate as possible can avoid possible confusion in a conversation.
...
However, people saying "it doesn't matter" miss the fact that the RLM would have never allowed the "163" designation to be used twice unless there was clear distinction between Bf and Me.
Case in point, the Me163 (Komet) versus the Bf163 (similar to the Fi156)
...
So ... if the aircraft were referred to in technical documents/drawings by their proper GL/C numbers, how would that work? 8-163 vs 8-163? The only possible explanation is that the 8-163 (Bf163), with only one built and tested and put to rest, was essentially a nonexistent aircraft at the time of the 8-163 (Me163) program so there was basically no room for confusion. Everyone, including in the RLM at the time, knew/knows that an Me109G-6/U-4 is the same aircraft as a Bf109G-6/U-4. Quite often now I simply refer to my little airplane buddy as the "109" and skip the whole prefix thing ... but, the RLM might have considered that wrong, too. I'm about to start referring to the RLM as the "Designation Nazis" ... hmmmm.
However, people saying "it doesn't matter" miss the fact that the RLM would have never allowed the "163" designation to be used twice unless there was clear distinction between Bf and Me.
Case in point, the Me163 (Komet) versus the Bf163 (similar to the Fi156)
...
So ... if the aircraft were referred to in technical documents/drawings by their proper GL/C numbers, how would that work? 8-163 vs 8-163? The only possible explanation is that the 8-163 (Bf163), with only one built and tested and put to rest, was essentially a nonexistent aircraft at the time of the 8-163 (Me163) program so there was basically no room for confusion. Everyone, including in the RLM at the time, knew/knows that an Me109G-6/U-4 is the same aircraft as a Bf109G-6/U-4. Quite often now I simply refer to my little airplane buddy as the "109" and skip the whole prefix thing ... but, the RLM might have considered that wrong, too. I'm about to start referring to the RLM as the "Designation Nazis" ... hmmmm.
Well you'd struggle to find more thoroughly 'Nazi' organisations than the RLM and Luftwaffe, both constructs of the Nazi regime.
Some of the post war efforts made by senior Luftwaffe officers to distance themselves from the regime are almost laughable. I'm sure you know who I mean.
Cheers
Steve
