ME 109g-6 u4 arnaments?

[henchman]

Just have question about the g6 u4 model. Was it never armed with 20mm cannon pods under the wing or was it called r6 then? Was this not standard equipment was it seldom used?

Here is the manual for this plane

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/manuals/bf109g6u4.pdf

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi.

I am not an expert on this, but according to Harald Vogt in his work "Messerschmitt Bf 109G/K Field Conversion Kits (Rustsätze)" this would not lead to the aircraft being noted as anything but Bf 109 G-6/U4. I have found his work somewhat confusing to read and feel that this might have something to do with the translation?

The Rustsätze or field conversion kits could be, as given by the name, mounted in the field, and also taken off an aircraft. The G-6 had a Rüstsatz VI which was the MG 151/20's in underwing gondolas as an option, but as this was not a factory installed kit it would not show up on the designation (in contrast to Umbausätze, factory mounted conversions, and engine conversions AS, MW50 etc).

Not an easy field, and my first instinct was in fact to write this up as a Bf 109G-6/U4/R6 however wrong that might be!

Also, I have looked at Prien/Rodeike and Sommerau's books, and these three references do not agree at all

Sommerau tends to use the FULL 'designations' (for example G6/R6 for a plain Bf 109G-6 with two underwing 151/20's, but G6/U4/R5! for an aircraft with Mk 108 cannon and underwing 151/20 gondolas (I do not understand why Sommerau states that the Rustsatz was R6 on a G6 and R5 on a G6/U4...), while Vogt and Prien/Rodeike tends towards the same conclusion, that an addition of a Rustsatz did not change the designation of the aircraft....

Have looked at the designations used on some 1944 aircraft I have loss records for, and these turn up as Bf 109 G6 U4 (as written in the original documents) or Bf 109 G6 U4 AS but have yet to see an R6 designation on one of these

Prien is online here, and I guess he could add to this discussion, and I also believe Sommerau is somewhere around in cyberspace.

Would be interesting to see what turns out in this discussion, maybe a joint effort will get us the final words on this topic

I think I will stick with Bf 109G6/U4 with field conversion kit VI

Regards,
Andreas B

[henchman]

Yeah it would be interesting to get a conclusion in this matter. I have been told that if a 109G-6 u4 was armed with these kits it was called u4/r6. What does themanual say about this matter, and what designation was used during the war?

http://img130.imageshack.us/my.php?image=g6u4ki3.png

[henchman]

Did the fitting of mg 151/20 pods severly hamper the G6 ability to peform in the air? Was it used often or only in rare occasions when intercepting large bombers. The G6 also had the ability to carry bombs but was this
rarely seen due to Germanys inability to control the air?

[Kutscha]

I have seen that the gondolas reduced speed by ~10kph. I find this hard to believe as the bomb racks on the P-51 reduced its speed by much more.

Have the actual numbers someplace.

[yogybär]

That /U4 is used in different places for different things. "/U" is for "Umbau" (only in factory)

The most important from my point of view is that in the danish website www.ww2.dk (http://www.ww2.dk) and the OoB's there.

In these tables, I am 100% sure that the /U4 means the central MK108.
I.e. II/JG52 gets these "109G-6/U4" in November 1944, which fits very good to the date given in Lipfert's diary. Also, Lipfert mentions one JG77 Gruppe which had this gun before. This can also be verified on the website.

The MG151/20 gondolas are definitely called "/R6" for Rüstsatz (changeable in field)

[Graham Boak]

I've seen 15kph quoted as a speed penalty. Although that seems a bit low, I don't think the comparison with the P-51's tanks is close, because the tanks are considerably larger, bluffer, and not ideally mounted.

However, the penalty was less in performance terms - although climb rate did suffer because of the drag and the weight - than in handling. Having large masses outboard on the wing adds considerable inertia to aircraft movements in yaw and roll.

They were, however, carried fairly often. Whatever "fairly" may mean. The 109G was also often used as a fighter-bomber, but mainly in the East.

[henchman]

Thanks for your answers.
Interesting that it was used as a fighterbomber , i havent seen that before, what type of ordinance did it carry was it 500kg 250kg or 50kg. Was it a quick procedure to mount a rustzätze on the G6 ?Yes the 20mm gun was called R6. But i still dont think that the lw changed the name of the aircraft (G-6/U4 when these were fitted on?

[yogybär]

henchman, for your understanding:
Bf190G-6 = 2x13mm + 1x20mm weapons
Bf109G-6/U4 = 2x13mm + 1x30mm weapons

as it is possible to read in the pdf (page 7 & 8), it was possible to load 1x250kg bomb or 4x50kg... or the 300l tank.
Foreach of these 3 alternative external loadouts, a different Rüstsatz was needed. The same is valid for the gondolas.

Rüstsätze could be mounted ad removed within a short time. From what I read about them, it was ca.1 hour, maybe 2 for the gondolas.

[henchman]

Tx for answer yogibär

I know that the u4 stands for the mk 108 kanone no doubt about it. What i am uncertain of is if the U4 when fitted with for example the R6 rust, was called G-6/U4/R6. Some people claim that it was called designated so but no LW ob i have seen used that designation.

[yogybär]

... you cannot see find it in any OOB, because
1) A Rüstsatz is not integral part of th eplane, so it will never show up in these lists.
2) I guess:
- none used 20mm-gunpods when he had a MK108. The MK was just enough for anything ;).
- the MK108-gunpods were not produced en masse because there was anyway already a shortage in ammo for the propeller-weapons.

[henchman]

http://www.luchtoorlog.be/img/me109g/sey.jpg

Is this a G6/U4 with mk 108?
http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/My-Site/The_planes.htm
Also check out this link att the bottom om page ,Knokes u4 with the pods is shown. Also a he describes firing rockets with his U4 into allied bomber formations

[veltro]

Seriously, how can you determine from a photograph if the Bf 109 shown was an U4...? IMHO, if the Werke Nummer is not known with certainty (and confirmed visually), it is impossible to estabilish the presence of the 30mm hub cannon.

[henchman]

I cant but the picture said it was. And as for the second link Knoke describes himself his new aircraft with the 30 mm cannon. And he describes firing werfers. And the picture is described as showing him in his U4.

Check out the link for yourself
http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/My-Site/Victory_12.htm

[veltro]

Sorry, but I have learned to do not trust photograph captions, which often relies on third hand info. Call me a doubter but, unless I am able to verify a Werke Nummer on the photo or know very well the subject, any "U4" identification based only on hearsay has little value to me... IMHO, of course.

[henchman]

So then you dont think that any of the U4 were equipped with the R6? But the real question is its designation for me. Would it just be a plain U4 in the records.

[veltro]

So then you dont think that any of the U4 were equipped with the R6?
I didn't say that. I only noticed that it is not possible to determine the presence of the 30mm hub cannon from a photograph.

But the real question is its designation for me. Would it just be a plain U4 in the records.
Whereas I have often seen "G-6/U4" designations in OOBs, I think it is quite improbable to find any of the Rüstsatzen reported in such documents... after all, do you expect the presence of the R3 (ventral 300l drop tank) to be reported on paper? As yogybär/Jörg already said, the very nature of the Rüstsatze was an on/off modification, which was not meant to be fixed. So, IMHO, it is unlikely that someone bothered to report that presence on papers, unless on a general basis of availability.

[henchman]

Tx that was the answer i was searching for.

[Nick Beale]

Whereas I have often seen "G-6/U4" designations in OOBs, I think it is quite improbable to find any of the Rüstsatzen reported in such documents... after all, do you expect the presence of the R3 (ventral 300l drop tank) to be reported on paper? As yogybär/Jörg already said, the very nature of the Rüstsatze was an on/off modification, which was not meant to be fixed. So, IMHO, it is unlikely that someone bothered to report that presence on papers, unless on a general basis of availability.

Your memories of our 1989 Freiburg trip have faded a little! My notes from RL2 III/881 on the strength of NAG 11 in June, July & August 1944 include Bf 109 G-8/R5, G-6/U2/R3 and Bf 109 G-5/U2/R2. However, all the unit's other aircraft are recorded more conventionally as G-6, G-6/U3, G-8/U3, G-5/U2.

In RL2 III/882 (Aug-Dec 1944) NAG 11 records BF 109 G-6 MW 50, Bf 109 G-6/R-2 MW 50, Bf 109 G-5/R2 MW 50, Bf 109 G-8/R5 MW 50, Bf 109 G-6/U3 MW 50 and Bf 109 G-6/U2/R2.

None of the other units we were looking at gave that much detail. JG 77 recorded a lot of Bf 109 G-6 and Bf 109 G-6/U4 but no Rüstsatz numbers.

[veltro]

I stand corrected, Nick! ;) Memory isn't the same as it used to be and on the other hand you too confirm that NAG 11 was quite an exception among the dozens of units and hundreds of documents we examined...

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, guys

Is this a way to end this with a consensus?

The full technical description of a Bf 109G-6 with Mk 108 engine mounted cannon and two 151/20 guns in wing pods would be:

Bf 109G6/U4 mit rustsatz IV or simply written Bf 109G6/U4/R6

but that it is highly unlikely that this designation will turn up EXCEPT in documentation at unit level (technical/administrative documents), and we will see these birds in most records as:

Bf 109G6/U4

What then an aircraft with the above configuration and drop tank?

Bf 109G6/U4/R3/R6?

Regards,
Andreas B

[George Hopp]

In RL2 III/882 (Aug-Dec 1944) NAG 11 records BF 109 G-6 MW 50, Bf 109 G-6/R-2 MW 50, Bf 109 G-5/R2 MW 50, Bf 109 G-8/R5 MW 50, Bf 109 G-6/U3 MW 50 and Bf 109 G-6/U2/R2.

Those designations are really interesting, Nick. No wonder the Luftwaffe lost the air war, it was spending all its time trying to figure out what type of 109 was on strength with what unit. So, one might ask: what was the difference between the Bf 109 G-6 MW 50, the Bf 109 G-6/R2 MW 50, and the Bf 109 G-14, since they all had the MW 50 system and carried the DB 605 AM engine.

And, to refresh my memory, was the U2 the GM-1 designation? And, the U3 was the MW50 installation for recce aircraft? Aaaaarrrrggggghhhhh!!!!

I seem to recall that the various Rüstsatze numbers referred only to the wiring/plumbing that was built into the a/c during production. And, whether or not the a/c carried the fuel tank, or the gun pods, or whatever, depended on the tactical situation.

For what it's worth, the manual for the 109 G-6/U4 with MK 108s in the underwing pods, gives no subtype for it, the sub-title for it being only "2 MK 108 in wing pods."

[bearoutwest]

Would it be reasonable to assume - that from a documentation point of view - a maintenance depot or aircraft assembly works would dispatch aircraft to the front line listed as (e.g.) Bf109G-6/U4?

Any description involving the add on rustsatz items, perhaps only appearing in unit combat reports; e.g. 14 aircraft sorties today - interception mission - 8x Bf109G-6/R6 and 6x Bf109G-6/U4, etc (as an example)?

...geoff

[George Hopp]

Would it be reasonable to assume - that from a documentation point of view - a maintenance depot or aircraft assembly works would dispatch aircraft to the front line listed as (e.g.) Bf109G-6/U4?

Any description involving the add-on rustsatz items, perhaps only appearing in unit combat reports; e.g. 14 aircraft sorties today - interception mission - 8x Bf109G-6/R6 and 6x Bf109G-6/U4, etc (as an example)?My feeling on this would be that the maintenance depot or a/c assembly works would want to give the receiving unit as much data as possible on the a/c. So, if it had Rustsatz 1, it had the wiring for the ETC 500, but it didn't have the plumbing for the 300l drop tank. If it didn't have Rustsatz 7, it could only use the FuG 16 ZE radio, since the others had the homing facility. Etc.

And, in sortie reports, I would guess that the basic description, 109G-6, 109 G-6/U4, and even just 109G would be considered sufficient.

But, don't despair, geoff, I have been wrong before.
All the best,
Felix

[Nick Beale]

Those designations are really interesting, Nick. No wonder the Luftwaffe lost the air war, it was spending all its time trying to figure out what type of 109 was on strength with what unit.

I put it down to an over-zealous Technischer Offizier in NAG 11, or a very bored one!

[yogybär]

I think it makes sense to give these designations in the stocklist, because you need specific supply for the MW50 as well as for the MK108's. Maybe the lists were used for planing of logistics (among other applicaitons), who knows...

[George Hopp]

I think it makes sense to give these designations in the stocklist, because you need specific supply for the MW50 as well as for the MK108's. Maybe the lists were used for planing of logistics (among other applicaitons), who knows...

You make a good point as far as you take it. But, then why is the MW 50 and the far more difficult to use GM-1 not mentioned for the G-6/U2/R2. Anyway, as you say, who knows ...

[Kurfürst]

Your memories of our 1989 Freiburg trip have faded a little! My notes from RL2 III/881 on the strength of NAG 11 in June, July & August 1944 include Bf 109 G-8/R5, G-6/U2/R3 and Bf 109 G-5/U2/R2. However, all the unit's other aircraft are recorded more conventionally as G-6, G-6/U3, G-8/U3, G-5/U2.

In RL2 III/882 (Aug-Dec 1944) NAG 11 records BF 109 G-6 MW 50, Bf 109 G-6/R-2 MW 50, Bf 109 G-5/R2 MW 50, Bf 109 G-8/R5 MW 50, Bf 109 G-6/U3 MW 50 and Bf 109 G-6/U2/R2.

None of the other units we were looking at gave that much detail. JG 77 recorded a lot of Bf 109 G-6 and Bf 109 G-6/U4 but no Rüstsatz numbers.

These are not showing kits, but permanent factory conversions...

Take for example, G-6/U2/R3 in the records. It's probably 'custom' G-6, converted into a long range photo recce (with GM-1 none the less..?) the /R3 is actually showing a rarer variant of the 109 which carried a 300 liter droptank under each wing (2 DTs in total). However that was a special version with fuel lines in the wings for the droptanks, which standard fighters did not have.. the /R3 suffix meant it had these two droptanks, a camera in the fuselage, and an extra oil tank in place of the cowl MGs. I am not 100% sure about if the /U2 means the same as on fighters (GM-1 tank and boost present), but probably so. Such plane makes sense in Nähaufklärungsgruppe, ja?

R5 and R2 I believe showed different cameras. G-6/R2 (camera + MW50 boost) was later re-designated as G-8 if I am not wrong and mixing the desinations up.

Field kits - bombracks for 50kg/250 kg, 300 liter underfuselage droptank, gondolas etc - NEVER !!!! show up in the type designation... there of course exceptions. For example the 109F could not mount gondolas, there was a late 109F serie that could and it had the /R1(?) suffix as a result (regardless it actually carries them or not. It just shows it's been modified to be able to). However, all the subsequent 109G airframes were factory prepeared for gondolas, so there's no special

The confusion probably arises from the fact that authors used the designations wrong for so many time, and it's easy to mix up R-factory conversions (with arab numbers) with R-field kits (with roman numbers).. the latter again do not show up in the designation.

[Kurfürst]

Hi, guys

Is this a way to end this with a consensus?

The full technical description of a Bf 109G-6 with Mk 108 engine mounted cannon and two 151/20 guns in wing pods would be:

Bf 109G6/U4 mit rustsatz IV or simply written Bf 109G6/U4/R6

It's a Bf 109G-6/U4.
It's a G-6, that was subject to the No. 4 factory modification, namely, fitting of a MK 108 in place of the MG 151/20.

It also carries the Rüstsatz VI (gunpods. These are Rüstsatz IV in case of the 109K).


but that it is highly unlikely that this designation will turn up EXCEPT in documentation at unit level (technical/administrative documents), and we will see these birds in most records as:

Bf 109G6/U4Yes, because it's still a Bf 109G-6/U4.
All Bf 109Gs could take the R-kits, each and every one of them had the wiring, piping etc.

Was a Spitfire IX with droptanks ever a Spitfire IX/Droptank...? ;)


What then an aircraft with the above configuration and drop tank?

Bf 109G6/U4/R3/R6?It's still Bf 109G-6/U4.

(with a Rüstsatz VI (gondies) and Rüstsatz III (rack for droptank).)


I think we need a sticky for German designations. :confused:

[Kurfürst]

So, one might ask: what was the difference between the Bf 109 G-6 MW 50, the Bf 109 G-6/R2 MW 50, and the Bf 109 G-14, since they all had the MW 50 system and carried the DB 605 AM engine.


The G-6 / MW 50 is iirc an early designation for those G-6s carrying MW-50 boost, too. The /R2 bird is a fighter-recce version with cameras and MW-50.

And the G-14, since it had MW-50 as factory production standard, as some ancient paper tells us, is 'wie G-6', but the MW-50 system is using compressed air 'auf Ladeluftbasis'.

the early MW-50 G-6s were usually simple-to-do conversions (only a valve was changed and MW-50 was filled instead of GM-1 afaik) from GM-1 tank carrying high-alt fighters, which used compressed air carried onboard in oxygene bottles, to force GM-1 into the eye of the supercharger. Since GM-1 was a spring fuel used in emergency, it was a simple enough solution, since most fighters didn't carry GM-1.

When the first GM-1 birds were converted to MW-50, they kept that system to force the MW-50 tanks content into the supercharger -
a leftover from the GM-1 system..

The G-14, and later 'proper' MW-50 aircraft were built from the start with MW50 boost in mind, and thus they simply tapped the supercharger's surplus compressed air into the MW-50 tank to do the same - same metod was used for a long time with the droptanks, no need for extra pumps that can go wrong...

[Nick Beale]

These are not showing kits, but permanent factory conversions...

My only point was to offer one case (unusual in my experience) where /R designations where recorded in a strength return. The other units I was looking at then, in the same files, didn't do that.

[Kurfürst]

Oh, I see. You mean the other recce units ..?

[George Hopp]

My only point was to offer one case (unusual in my experience) where /R designations where recorded in a strength return. The other units I was looking at then, in the same files, didn't do that.

Thank you very much for giving them, Nick. I found the listing to be really interesting, informative, and ever so slightly confusing.

Thank you again,
George

[Nick Beale]

Oh, I see. You mean the other recce units ..?

No, Italian-based units in general. This was research for Air War italy 1944-45 (http://www.ghostbombers.com/nickbeale.html). The data for the JG 77 Gruppen in Italy didn't go into such detail, for example.

[Kurfürst]

Oh, thank you, now it's clear. So the /-designations are definietely recorded ina sloppy manner in cases, I just checked ww2.dk for JG 77, whch I believe records different type of reports from the units to higher levels - those ones definietely note conversions of the subtypes (ie. /U2, /U4).
http://ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg77.htm

It seems to be sloppy administration accross the board, since for example when I tried to check Knoke's unit for /AS aircraft, none were showing up the date Knoke gives them. But they were there, he clearly notes they were from the factory, the date, there's even pictures of his superior's ride, clearly a G-5/AS... yet the records at ww2.dk only show Neufertigung G-5s ...

Thanks, Nick.

[RalphZimmer]

Dear all,
Very interesting discussion!


I recall reading the following designations somewhere – it might be from a G-6/U4 manual I read some years ago in the then „Außenstelle des militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes“ at Potsdam:
- G-6/U4: (MK108 in the engine)
- G-6/U5(IIRC): (U4+ 2 MK108 in gondolas)
There was a mention that the use of MG151 gondola weapons was forbidden. Unfortunately I am not at home to check my notices.

In my opinion Kurfürsts comments concerning Rüstsätze/Rüstzustände/Umrüst-Bausätze are correct – there would be no sense in changing the designation of an aircraft without lasting changes in its structure.

Therefore the different possible “Rüstsätze“ are not used in its designation as they where interchangeable in the field. Instead they are mentioned in the type´s manual, e.g in the manual for the G-6/U4 the possible Rüstsätze R3 (fuel tank) etc. were listed.

Thus I think there were (at least) three different types of variants/subvariants:
1) “Rüstsatz” (sing., plural: “Rüstsätze”: field-conversion-kits.
These were not mentioned in the aircrafts designation as the necessary plumbing/wiring was installed at the factory.

In each manual I saw the possible “Rüstsätze“ for the special subtype are listed (IIRC in Part 0).


2) “Rüstzustand” (sing., plural: “Rüstzustände”): actual equipment situation, which where installed not at unit at level. These required extensive changes which were not possible at unit level. The designation of the subtype was changed too. Examples are the recce variants G-4/R3 and G-6/R3 with two drop tanks under the wings.
As the Rüstzustand is part of the types designation, it is mentioned in the title of the corresponding manual.



3) “Umrüst-Bausatz” (sing., plural: “Umrüst-Bausätze”) (perhaps factory conversion kits?), which were not changeable at unit level, too.
As the Umrüst-Bausatz is part of the types designation, it is mentioned in the title of the corresponding manual.


The differences between “Rüstzustände and Umrüst-Bausätze are not perfectly clear to me, as both were carried out at the factory.
Perhaps the difference lies in the timing of the conversion, as the german “Umrüst-Bausatz” implies? In this case the conversion of an airframe to a “Rüstzustand” was carried out while under production, while an Umrüst-Bausatz was fitted afterwards?

Another designation that puzzles me is the “/R1” as in G-6/R1. These are sometimes mentioned in loss lists from Prien et al and were recorded at units in North Africa around 1942/43. I never heard of a Rüstzustand 1 but neither thought, that adding the Rüstsatz 1 (ETC) would alter the types designation, too. Perhaps also a habit of a technical officer or his clerk? Is there anybody to solve this?

Greetings from Essen
Ralph Zimmer

[ArtieBob]

Forgive me if I am a bit confused about some aspects of this discussion, as Bf 109s are not my special interest and thus have not been reading some of the posts as carefully as I might. But, perhaps the following might be of interest:

As an example, here are designations of Bf 109s from the August 1943 Messerschmitt A.G. Monatsbericht:
G-2
G-2/R 1
G-2/R 2
G-3
G-4
G-4/U 7
Ga-4
G-5
G-6
G-6/R 3
G-6/U 4
G-8
The C-Amts reports generally used the same format, but usually also included a Verwendungszreck column with codes as: J, J Hö, A, AHöRei, ABöRei, etc. The only time I remember Roman numerals appearing in the C-Amts reports were associated with Kehl III and IV modifications.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

[Juha]

Thanks Kurfürst and Ralph for your excellent messages.
My understanding is same. In fact I was a bit bitter when I noticed from IIRC Prien & Rodike the difference between Rüstsatz and Rüstzustand and the fact that R something was only used in connection with latter. Reason was that I had to abandon the easy 109G-6/R6 designation, to which I still lapse sometimes, and began to use 109G-6 mit Rüstsatz VI, what a pity. Reason: years ago I was fascinated by the different opinions some Finnish aces had on 109G-6 mit Rüstsatz VI

And yes, Kurfürst, You remembered right, F-4/R1 was the designation of F-4 with possibility to use gunpods.

Juha

[Harold Lake]

TO ARTIE BOB:
It was a surprise to see your mention of a G-4/U7 from Messerschmitt's August 1943 Monthly Report. Is this a typo? I didn't think Bf 109 "U-numbers" went beyond U6. If you are certain this is not a typo, does the report give any clue as to what this item was?
Hal

[Kurfürst]

Another designation that puzzles me is the “/R1” as in G-6/R1. These are sometimes mentioned in loss lists from Prien et al and were recorded at units in North Africa around 1942/43. I never heard of a Rüstzustand 1 but neither thought, that adding the Rüstsatz 1 (ETC) would alter the types designation, too. Perhaps also a habit of a technical officer or his clerk? Is there anybody to solve this?

Greetings from Essen
Ralph Zimmer

Messerschmitt AG's compilation report identifies the G-6/R1 as JaboRei, Long Range Fighter-Bomber with 2x300 liter droptanks, and, as in the case of G-1/R1, and 500 kg (yes, 500kg) bomb under the fuselage. G-4/R1 of similiar flavour is also mentioned.

That surprises me quite a bit to find records of G-6/R1 from operational areas, I always though there were only a couple of G-1/R1s around, and those primarly as testbeds only. But then again, I have not seen any detailed production summaries from 1943.

Interesting find, Ralph. The 109's history never cease to amaze me. There's always something new about it...

[RalphZimmer]

That surprises me quite a bit to find records of G-6/R1 from operational areas, I always though there were only a couple of G-1/R1s around, and those primarly as testbeds only. But then again, I have not seen any detailed production summaries from 1943.
Hi Kurfürst,
What surprises me (most) in this case is using "Jabos" in a fighter unit and not within a Schlacht- or Schnellkampf-unit. Of course fighter units made ground attack sorties, but as you stated these subversions (G-6/R1 etc) were "JaboRei". This meant (IIRC) that they carried two drop tanks under the wings in addition to the SC250 under the fuselage. I neither knew that thise subversions were more than just prototypes, nor that they were intended for "standard" day fighter units.
But of course, there seems to be nothing impossible with the 109;)

Greetings
Ralph

[Kurfürst]

It may be that examples special purpose planes found their way into 'ordinary' fighter units, and were issued if nothing else available, and in the end not used for their original purpose.

Take the well-known G-6/U2 that mis-landed in the UK in July 1944; originally it was GM-1 carrying high altitude fighter (/U2); the pictures also show the small bulge for the pressurized compressor on the right side, so it started it's carrier as a special purpose, pressurized G-5 with GM-1 boost - it ended up with JG 300 (or 301?) chasing bombers under the moonlight, without any sort of special equipment present.. I am sure life produced plenty of such 'misuse' of equipment.

[Rasmussen]

Take the well-known G-6/U2 that mis-landed in the UK in July 1944; originally it was GM-1 carrying high altitude fighter (/U2); the pictures also show the small bulge for the pressurized compressor on the right side, so it started it's carrier as a special purpose, pressurized G-5 with GM-1 boost - it ended up with JG 300 (or 301?) chasing bombers under the moonlight, without any sort of special equipment present.. I am sure life produced plenty of such 'misuse' of equipment.

The well-known G-6/U2, W.Nr.412 951, was never an G-5 with GM-1. The a/c started his life as normal G-6/U2 in June 1944.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

[Jochen Prien]

Dear Ralph Zimmer,

I only now had a chance to look into this thread and found that you were puzzled by some loss returns that " Prien et al " mentioned as Bf 109 G-6/R1 in North Africa in 1942/43.

I'm not aware that I ever mentioned the loss of a Bf 109 G-6/R1 in North Africa, least of all in 1942. Would you be so kind and tell me where we listed the loss of a Bf 109 G-6/R1 in North Africa so that I can check this and, if neccessary, correct an obvious mistake ?

Thank you.

Jochen Prien

[Kurfürst]

The well-known G-6/U2, W.Nr.412 951, was never an G-5 with GM-1. The a/c started his life as normal G-6/U2 in June 1944.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

I was going by the fact it had a compressor under the HMG bulge, please check photo :

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Gladwin-Simms/3600L.jpg

Do you have perhaps the detailed career of this aircraft..?

[Rasmussen]

I was going by the fact it had a compressor under the HMG bulge, please check photo : ...

The HMG bulge had in this case (and in many others too) nothing to do with an compressor but with factory processes.

In this times Erla was
1. one of the "Zentralfertiger" of cowlings and
2. former production plans for G-5 were deleted.

The order was to prepare the plannend production and to store (roundabout) 10 % of the monthly production - the so-called "Bevorratung". Because of the deletion they had more than enough G-5 cowlings to use in times of supply shortfalls without technical problems.

So you can find the G-5 cowling on G-6 or G-14 too.

An detailed career I haven't, sorry.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

[RalphZimmer]

Dear Mr. Prien,

I made the mistake of confusing the G-6/R1 with the G-2/R1. All G-6/R1 were listed in the Chronik of JG53 (german edition) as lost in the fall of 1943 (15222) and in 1944. Thus there are no mistakes in your works but in my memory!
In my opinion theses books are outstanding - please continue them!

Concerning my question on the G-/R1-subversions I am still puzzled which equipment changes where designated as Rüstzustand 1?

Greetings from Essen

Ralph

[olefebvre]

AFAIK Wknr 412951 was never fitted with GM-1 equipment either, there were absolutly no trace of this equipment in the aircraft, inclunding the hatches.

The /R1 was basically fitted with the same piping as the /R3 recce variant, but with higher ground clearance so as to be fitted with de 500kg bombs. Yet i believe the later capability was dropped when the a/c made it to operational status, leaving only the capbility of having an increased range.

[veltro]

I was going by the fact it had a compressor under the HMG bulge(...)
It would be far more correct to say that it had the "HMG bulge", not necessarily with a compressor under it!

As Rasmussen pointed out, one thing was the construction and/or installation of a cowling (panel, hatch), all another the fact that behind it there was the technical detail it should accomodate...

This is especially true for late series Bf 109 Gs, the most glaring example being the G-14/AS, whose MTT examples had the "chin-bulged" cowl typical of DB 605D aircraft (originally built to house the return lines of some cooling tubings of that engine), whereas those bulges were unnecessary for the DB 605AS...

The fact, as already happened with the G-5 cowls gone into G-6 production, was that MTT had large batches of the "chin-bulged" cowls, sharing production of the K-4 on the same factory and thus these were used, no matter if the "chin-bulges" were necessary or not.

Hope this helps.

[ArtieBob]

Dear Harold Lake,

I made an error in the posting you referred to. It was not typographical, the image was pretty clear, however it referred to a BF 110! The Messerschmitt report did not include the 8-Nummer in the descriptions and I did not note that the column of sub-type listings included both Bf 109s and 110s. I will make corrections to my original post. Sorry for the mistake, my point being to illustrate the form subtypes were presented in both Messerschmitt and C-Amt documents. And the Kehl III and IV designations were not associated with Messerschmitt types at all, but were included as an example of when Roman numerals had been used.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

[Harold Lake]

Thanks, Artie Bob, for letting me/us know. This thread has proven to be quite interesting and informative. I am frequently impressed by both the quality and scope of evidence presented by individual respondees.
Hal

[Rasmussen]

AFAIK Wknr 412951 was never fitted with GM-1 equipment either, there were absolutly no trace of this equipment in the aircraft, inclunding the hatches.

You are right ... in the German document the a/c is reported as normal G-6 without GM 1 but then the Tony Wood site seems to be wrong. There the a/c is reported as G-6/U2.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

[Harold Lake]

It is probable that Bf 109 G-6, W.Nr. 412951, became a "U2" many decades ago thanks to W. Green. It is also possible that Green confused this aircraft for W.Nr. 412911, which was a documented G-6/U2.

Hal

[Juha]

I have one question.
To my understanding all 109Gs were wired for MG 20/151 gunpods. Now all later G-2 which were delivered to Finland were repaired and overhauled specimens, at least many of them with 109 G-6 wings. Now in the Übernahme-Bescheinigung form for ex. MT-241 (WNr 14253) on the line Sonstige is written Rüstzustand: Ohne Gondelbewaffnung and on accompanying paper there is among other
Der Flugzeug wurde z.Zt. ohne Rüstsätze angeliefert
Rüstzustand: Ohne Gondelbewaffnung.

IIRC all Finnish AF got all its G-2s without gunpods but why these Rüstzustand statements? If Kurfürst’s, Ralph Zimmer’s, Prien’s and my understanding is correct would the statement “Der Flugzeug wurde z.Zt. ohne Rüstsätze angeliefert” have been enough to declare the fact that the plane was delivered without Rüstsatz VI?

Juha

[Leo Etgen]

Hello guys

Interesting thread as I am interested in this subject as well but there seems to be a great deal of conflicting information and opinions. Looking through the Bf 109 G-6/U4 manual on http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/manuals/bf109g6u4.pdf I found this on page 10:

8. Ausrüstung
h. Rüstsätze

Wahlweise An- bzw. Einbaumöglichkeit nachstehender Rüstsätze ist möglich:

Rüstsatz 1 Abwurfwaffe 1 ETC 500/IXb oder
Rüstsatz 2 Abwurfwaffe 4 ETC 500/VIIId oder } unter Rumpf
Rüstsatz 3 300 Ltr. Kraftstoff-Zusatzbehälter
Rüstsatz 6 2 Flügelgondeln mit je 1 MG 151/20
Rüstsatz 7 Peilrufanlage

Does not this prove that the Bf 109 G-6/U4 could use the underwing cannon gondolas and when these were fitted was designated as Bf 109 G-6/U4/R6 although in field use this designation never appears on the strength returns possibly due to its temporary nature? I am certainly not an expert in this field so I quite possibly am in error but the manual seems to lean towards this.

Horrido!

Leo

[olefebvre]

In various documents you can find "Rüstsatz" and "Rüstzustand" used as a way of describing Rüstsatzen. IIRC there are no documents being very clear about the use of both terms, and frankly i'm yet to see an unambigous doc stating that the /Rx are actually called "Rüstzustands"

Yet one can draw clear lines about the designations, after studying the various existing documents:
the various /Ux are modification made to an already existing airframe design.
the /Rx required a structuraly modified airframe, meaning that standard equipment could not always be fitted. (/R3 prevented mounting of R VI Rüstsatz, etc...)

The /Rx designation was first introduced to distinguish F4 with the modified wing from the older ones. the /R1 a/c were the only ones able to use the R VII gondolas.

the R nn (R VI) were never recorded on the docs, since they were temporary mods, which could be reverted at any time.

Olivier

[Juha]

Thanks Olivier
I have sometimes wondered how much confusion, if any, this "Rüstsatz" vs. "Rüstzustand" business caused in LW bureaucracy.

Juha

[Tony Kambic]

Here is a sample of a data plate that Artie Bob referred to in post #37, the J/Bo/Rei. It is from Bf109G-6/U4 trop WNr. 441006.

Tony