Bf 109 in Austria!!!

v2 · 12-08-2006, 10:30 AM

During the last 20 years Ing. Kurt Steiner had been restoring a Bf 109 to complete condition. It represents the aircraft flown by Unteroffizier Herbert Maxis, who was killed by U.S. troops after he had to make a forced landing during the operation "Bodenplatte" January 1945.
On 1 January 1945, during operation “Bodenplatte”, the German Luftwaffe launched a surprising blow against Allied ground targets. Fighter Group JG 53 had orders to attack the airport at Frescaty near Metz. Before reaching the target NCO Herbert Maxis (born 1920) from Friedrichshütte in Upper Silesia of Group IV got in trouble and emergency landed near Oberfelsberg. He has been MIA since then.
Responsible for this crash was American soldier Flenory Griggs of 455th AAA AW (M) Bn., 'A' Battery which was stationed at Düren to protect American field artillery. He hit Maxis’ Messerschmitt plane with machine gun fire and forced him down only 200 yards from his position. Hints given by members of this American unit indicate that Maxis was shot when he wanted to leave his plane by approaching artillery men who mistakenly believed he was going to pull a pistol though he actually just wanted to press his hand against a body wound.

If you ever come near Vienna, you could visit the Aviaticum in Wiener Neustadt (60km from Vienna at the airodrome Wiener Neustadt Ost).

Pics: ( text in German; Adler help!!! )
Luftfahrtforum Österreich :: Thema anzeigen - Me 109 im Aviaticum Wr. Neustadt

R-2800 · 12-08-2006, 10:39 AM

wow interesting story!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-09-2006, 12:02 PM

Very cool.

ChrisMAg2 · 12-10-2006, 10:38 AM

I don't realy like it. I admit the labor is good, the same is for the intention. But the overall result is atleast ambigious:
We see the original wings of Uffz. Herbert Maxis "white 13" Me 109 G-14 AS. But then there is this G-6 fuselage, and the overall camo à la 1943. On them are Max Herbert's 1945 marking of "white 13" and III./ JG 53 including the RVB.
Explanation for this contradiction: in WNF only G-6 were built, although it is also recorded that (a small number of) standard G-14 were also produced.
My two cents...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-10-2006, 12:57 PM

Yes but with so few 109s remaining, everyone one rebuilt (as long as it is original parts) is something that the people can see and the legend will not die.

ChrisMAg2 · 12-11-2006, 05:11 AM

I agree with that, but that also degrades the "109" to themepark event, where details are not really important. These small details deserve a better appreciation to achieve a more authentic impression, not just a near to an original impression. ...IMO.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-11-2006, 01:08 PM

I too agree with what you are saying, but in this case I still think it is okay.

pbfoot · 12-11-2006, 04:09 PM

in the field you would think that various marks swapped parts to repair damage and wear and tear if the peice fit I dont think it would matter which version of aircraft it was.

evangilder · 12-13-2006, 11:51 PM

Very true, PB. If it was serviceable and fit, I don't think anyone would quibble that it came from a Mk III going into a Mk XIV. When you need a part, you need a part.

ChrisMAg2 · 12-14-2006, 05:52 AM

But the fitting and interchangeability is not the point (here).
A Me 109 G-14/AS is something different then a G-6. Yes, the fuselage was the same, but already the engine was different. The tailsection and canopy are/ could be differnt too. Most important: here you see 1945 markings with RVB on a 1943 camo. That is a contradiction. The original "white 13" had noticebely different camo, that is even recorded. Then you apply a G-14/AS WNr on a G-6 airframe with G-14 wings. You have a hybird that never existed in this way.

evangilder · 12-16-2006, 03:21 PM

You think that it is the only warbird that has errors? The important thing is that people get to see a 109. Most people won't know the difference, but they get too see a historic airplane. Yes, there will be people who do know the difference, but I would prefer that people at least get to see one with errors than to not see it at all.

ChrisMAg2 · 12-16-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

You think that it is the only warbird that has errors? The important thing is that people get to see a 109. Most people won't know the difference, but they get too see a historic airplane. Yes, there will be people who do know the difference, but I would prefer that people at least get to see one with errors than to not see it at all.

True! But again this is not even a historic plane, but only (in the best, if ever!) the image of ww2 fighter. Only the wings are original. They are not even colored according to the original. As I said earlier like that it is "a theme park artifact".
With today's knowledge, even a theme park should be more then just "roughly near" the original. There are enough bad examples over the world and (IMO) we don't need one more. Quality and historical correctness should be a point you can expect and demand, even and especially if you are not the (Me 109) buff. There are also losts of very good rebuilds (Fw 190 A-8 in Hannover-Laatzen >a rebuild from six! wrecks<, Me 110 F-2 in Berlin etc.) and all took the nessecary research time to give it a correct appearance. Why not here? I cannot agree on your last sentence. It should be: what ever it is, it should be correct or atleast as close as it can be researched to the original. The labor to make it correct is the same as just the idea of a plane. As always it's a matter of good research and planning that makes a good job. And, sorry again!, but with you're last sentence you do not appreciate all the succesful works done over last past years (Fw 190 D-13, yellow 10/ He 219 A-2/ Fw 190 A-8, red 6/ rom. Ju 88 D-1/ Me 109 G-4 / Me 109 G-10, black 10...).

pbfoot · 12-16-2006, 10:18 PM

I'll take the repaired 109 anyday without qualms but I guess I'm just blessed

evangilder · 12-17-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisMAg2

True! But again this is not even a historic plane, but only (in the best, if ever!) the image of ww2 fighter. Only the wings are original. They are not even colored according to the original. As I said earlier like that it is "a theme park artifact".
With today's knowledge, even a theme park should be more then just "roughly near" the original. There are enough bad examples over the world and (IMO) we don't need one more. Quality and historical correctness should be a point you can expect and demand, even and especially if you are not the (Me 109) buff. There are also losts of very good rebuilds (Fw 190 A-8 in Hannover-Laatzen >a rebuild from six! wrecks<, Me 110 F-2 in Berlin etc.) and all took the nessecary research time to give it a correct appearance. Why not here? I cannot agree on your last sentence. It should be: what ever it is, it should be correct or atleast as close as it can be researched to the original. The labor to make it correct is the same as just the idea of a plane. As always it's a matter of good research and planning that makes a good job. And, sorry again!, but with you're last sentence you do not appreciate all the succesful works done over last past years (Fw 190 D-13, yellow 10/ He 219 A-2/ Fw 190 A-8, red 6/ rom. Ju 88 D-1/ Me 109 G-4 / Me 109 G-10, black 10...).

Perhaps for statically displayed aircraft, you can be a bit pickier, as parts can be fabricated for non-flying aircraft to give it a more authentic appearance. I certainly can appreciate other works, I volunteer with the CAF, which has the largest collection of flying historic aircraft. We have an F4F Martlet locally that has a historically incorrect paint job, but it does fly, and a lot of people get to see it because of that. Our chapter owns a Zero, a real one. It is supposed to be an A6M3 Model 22, but has parts and features that are not correct to a mod 22. It is Nakajima built with a paint scheme that is in Mitsubishi style. I don't think it's a big deal, because people are seeing a real Zero fly. If they had to make it historically correct, it wouldn't be flying..at all. Flying displayed aircraft get seen by a much larger group of people than static displays in a museum. And the point is to get as many people to see them as possible.

The cool thing about an aircraft with errors is that people that become knowledgable can then recognize what is wrong. An aircraft that is displayed with errors can stil generate an interest in the history and the aircraft. Otherwise, they are just reading words on a page or placard. Could you imagine an "aviation museum" with no actual aircraft at all?

ChrisMAg2 · 12-17-2006, 09:00 AM

Evan,
we are not really that far apart, aren't we? I agree with you, that where thrill and entertainment dominates the purpose, the smallest details are not really that important (a Germany, 1940 painted "Buchon" -i.e. for the B.o.B.-movie- would be impossible - as another example). An "educational" museum should -on the other hand- see to it to be as close as possible to be correct in all details with it's static or not flyable displays.