...
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.