ioannis sas
Recruit
- 2
- Mar 24, 2017
So can someone tell me why some g10s were made like the upper picture and some like the picture below?( Erich Hartmanns last 109 which was a g10 was like the picture below)
Last edited by a moderator:
Me109 g10 question
- Thread starter ioannis sas
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So can someone tell me why some g10s were made like the upper picture and some like the picture below?( Erich Hartmanns last 109 which was a g10 was like the picture below)
It was simply a failure of standardisation.
Even on the two examples you show, notice that it is not just the presence or absence of an antenna mast that is a difference, the rudders are another obvious difference.
Other obvious differences can be found in the cowlings that replaced the earlier 'beule', Erla being quite different from WNF and Diana which were in turn slightly different to Mtt Reg.
As far as I can tell the G-10s produced with a mast were in the 49xxxx block from Erla, but I wouldn't bet that some didn't come from other factories and blocks. The lower example which you posted is not from that Erla block, given the port side cowling, as drawn.
This whole area is a minefield!!!!
Cheers
Steve
Even on the two examples you show, notice that it is not just the presence or absence of an antenna mast that is a difference, the rudders are another obvious difference.
Other obvious differences can be found in the cowlings that replaced the earlier 'beule', Erla being quite different from WNF and Diana which were in turn slightly different to Mtt Reg.
As far as I can tell the G-10s produced with a mast were in the 49xxxx block from Erla, but I wouldn't bet that some didn't come from other factories and blocks. The lower example which you posted is not from that Erla block, given the port side cowling, as drawn.
This whole area is a minefield!!!!
Cheers
Steve
- Thread starter
- #3
ioannis sas
Recruit
- 2
- Mar 24, 2017
Nice thanks for the reply ! Where can i get this information besides books i am eager to learn everything aobut 109s thanks in advance
fubar57
General
You can start here...The 109 Lair- The Online Source for Messerschmitt 109 information
Originally, the mast, first a tall one then a short one, was attached to the upper aft of the rear canopy section and was lost with it when the canopy was jettisoned. The third section was what was actually jettisoned and since it held the second section trapped between it and the windshield the second section of the canopy then fell away as well. When the Erla canopy came along it combined the second and third canopy sections in a single assembly and so a sideways D shaped tubular frame was made to retain the aft hinge of the Erla canopy and laid flat against the aft slope of the upper cockpit. At the top of the D a plate went aft between the canopy and fuselage, laying flat against the top of the fuselage, and on the outside behind the canopy the mast was installed on this plate. A simpler variation at this point was just installing the mast on the aft end of the Erla canopy itself. It appears it was felt the mast needed to be jettisoned so it wouldn't interfere with bailout. It was then decided that the mast didn't really need to be jettisoned for bailout and it began to be installed on the fuselage aft of the canopy. Then it was decided the mast wasn't really needed after all. A possible factor could very well be the radio itself and it's antenna requirements but I have no insight there at all. Could another factor be the supply of masts themselves? These variations did not happen at the same time at the various factories though production decisions were certainly shared.
The main problem with attempts at standardization was the same thing that allowed so many 109s to be built in the first place and that was diversified production. There were so many small vendors it was impossible to keep production moving along while coordinating a slew of major changes. The K was produced by factories that could make the key airframe parts themselves and those that couldn't essentially made their own version of the K out of G airframe parts (the G-10, and a G-14 is a G-6 made out of G-10 parts ... Well, that's my opinion ... lol.)
The main problem with attempts at standardization was the same thing that allowed so many 109s to be built in the first place and that was diversified production. There were so many small vendors it was impossible to keep production moving along while coordinating a slew of major changes. The K was produced by factories that could make the key airframe parts themselves and those that couldn't essentially made their own version of the K out of G airframe parts (the G-10, and a G-14 is a G-6 made out of G-10 parts ... Well, that's my opinion ... lol.)
It is actually quite difficult to say when the G-6 became the G-14. A G-14 with a DB 605 A engine is really a G-6 with MW 50....isn't it? This was the first real attempt at standardisation, but one look at variations in the G-14s produced shows that this did not go well.
A G-14/AS looks a lot like a G-10, albeit with the wrong engine, but then some G-14s were retro fitted with the DB 605 D, supposedly characteristic of the G-10 (and K series). If the G-10 was a further effort at standardisation, and it seems that it was, it failed even more completely than the G-14.
The K-4 was eventually the most standard of the late war Bf 109s. There were few variations in the majority of the series which may be because most were built at one plant (Regensburg). The radio mast and antenna attachment point on the tail were minor differences. A few were built by Erla and did have slightly different cowlings.
As I said, this is a minefield and misidentification is easy.
Cheers
Steve
A G-14/AS looks a lot like a G-10, albeit with the wrong engine, but then some G-14s were retro fitted with the DB 605 D, supposedly characteristic of the G-10 (and K series). If the G-10 was a further effort at standardisation, and it seems that it was, it failed even more completely than the G-14.
The K-4 was eventually the most standard of the late war Bf 109s. There were few variations in the majority of the series which may be because most were built at one plant (Regensburg). The radio mast and antenna attachment point on the tail were minor differences. A few were built by Erla and did have slightly different cowlings.
As I said, this is a minefield and misidentification is easy.
Cheers
Steve
I've seen references to G-14s being fit with 605Ds but I have also seen pictures of G-14s with 605D cowlings but having 605A engines, so, for instance, just because the chin bulges are present doesn't necessarily mean there is a D underneath. I think aircraft were completed with components on hand and if a production block was supposed to be G-14s but some 605Ds were available to complete the production block they would have been used and those specific planes would likely have been tagged as G-10s. If the production order wasn't updated OR if we simply don't have the updated production order then it would look like some G-14s were completed with 605Ds. Sadly, we don't have complete information. Now this is all based on factory production, it is entirely plausible that there were engine swaps in the field that mixed this stuff up entirely. Another complication is the different factories made their production updates/changeovers at different times. Something else is there were a lot of refurbished airframes getting new serial numbers but often times retaining some original characteristic that was deemed unnecessary to update for expediency.
My interest (I have Asperger's ...
) in the 109 began about 1974 when I bought a Wings magazine (still have it ... the "A" thing) that purported to disclose all the secrets of the K. I absolutely drilled in on it (the "A" thing) and found numerous holes in the article that bugged the crap out of me ("A"). I eventually discovered some of the info was true, some not, and absolutely NONE of the many pictures was actually of a K - lol. It is a minefield, but it's getting better. Working for an airline for 28 years has afforded me the opportunity to travel and see these planes and talk to researchers and restorers. It's been fun. (I, and some others, have a disagreement with the Smithsonian senior staff about the Ta152 ID that is, I think a very interesting --- for another time.)
My interest (I have Asperger's ...
) in the 109 began about 1974 when I bought a Wings magazine (still have it ... the "A" thing) that purported to disclose all the secrets of the K. I absolutely drilled in on it (the "A" thing) and found numerous holes in the article that bugged the crap out of me ("A"). I eventually discovered some of the info was true, some not, and absolutely NONE of the many pictures was actually of a K - lol. It is a minefield, but it's getting better. Working for an airline for 28 years has afforded me the opportunity to travel and see these planes and talk to researchers and restorers. It's been fun. (I, and some others, have a disagreement with the Smithsonian senior staff about the Ta152 ID that is, I think a very interesting --- for another time.)
