Bf 109G-2/R1

[AFROBINSON808]

Hi all,

I've read about the Bf 109G-2/R1 experimental variant with a 1100 pound bomb, an extra landing gear leg and underwing drop tanks. I've also noted that the 109G-2/R1 designation could also refer to a variant with normal undercarriage and bomb rack, and that at least 10 early 109G-2's (within the 13401-14000 production block) may have been built to this standard. Is that true?

Thanks

[ouidjat]

Hi Robinson,

You are refering to FiSk 199 project, which actually was built around a Bf109G-1, WNr.14008 ... Not a Bf109G-2.

You can check on following photo http://www.me109.info/display.php?a=e&fid=7032 the very small air scoop just over the super charger; typical for a G-1.
It wasn't a G-1/R1, neither G-2/R1.

Regards.

[AFROBINSON808]

Thanks, but I have one other question: Are 109G-2's built with the bomb rack (if there were ever any?) referred to by the designation Bf 109G-2/R1?

[RolandF]

The R1 Rüstsatz was intended for SC or SD 250 bombs. The most important parts of this Rüstsatz were not visible, i.e. the electrical wiring, the cables for manual release, the ZSK 244. The bombrack itself and its fairing were easilily detachable in a short time but I don´t know whether those were attached at the fuselage when delivered or stored in boxes e.g. when they arrived at the units. The units now were easily capable to switch from fighter to fighter-bomber duties (the bomb rack diminished the speed at a rate of 15km/h, the bomb itself further 55km/h).
According to Vogt the G-series was the first variant to have the basic wiring already incorporated into the fuselage. The pressurized G-1 series, which was the sister variant to the G-2, received also this designation G-1/R1, for instance, but this significated there weren´t any additional features at all. A pure high-altitude fighter.

Regards

Roland

[ouidjat]

Roland,

This raises comments and questions.

1/ Did the electrical wiring the same used for drop tank releasing?
If yes ... then no R1 (except when using the external rack)
If no ... Then R1, with OR without the external rack.
2/ Did the R1 Rüstsatz external rack used the same fixation points than the tank rack? Again ...
If yes ... Then no reason to name one G-2(for example)/R1 ...
If NO ... Then G-2/R1 did really exist with or without the external rack AND in particular when using the multi rack for small bombs.
(I can imagine the mechanicals screwing on preexisting points but not drilling to create them!

Part of the answer is in LEMB data base where one G-2/R1/Trop is quoted for Finish Air Force and another one for JG53 ... At least. + one in (my) lost list.

This remind me one comment made by Rasmussen when he declared (more or less) "G-6/R6 didn't exist and one must write G-6 with Rüstsatz VI

Well ... Interesting! Since the 20mm NEEDED electrical wirings too!
Hence, whether ALL G-6 got dedicated MG 20mm electrical wiring at production level - in that case I understand why there was no G-/R6.
But if only part of the production received the electrical wiring, with the possibility to put external gondola then they were true G-6/R6s.

Regards, Franck.

[RolandF]

The R1 Rüstsatz featured an electrically operated bomb release. In case of emergency the bomb could be released by a mechanically operated Notwurfhebel. This emergency lever, according to Harald Helmut Vogt, could also be used to release the 300l belly tank. The additional fuel supply was provided by the additional piping of a R3 Rüstsatz which has nothing to do with the R1 Rüstsatz - apart from the afore-mentioned mechanically operated Notwurfhebel. Insofar the R1 and R3 variants shared this lever, which was used also for the R2 and R4 Rüstsätze. If we follow Vogt the whole G-series included the electrical wiring for the R1, so I think also the emergency lever must be included throughout all those sub-variants. The attachment points for bombs and tank were totally different, but could be changed within 1,5 hours (including the bomb) or 45 minutes (including fuelling).
The Rüstsätze topic for the Bf 109 seems to be a complicated matter. According to Vogt the Rüstsatz designation for the E- and F-variants was incorporated into the type identification plates (i.e. E-4/B and later F-4/R1), whereas for the G-variants this was not the case. The units obviously decided and chose the Rüstzustände for their planes and their respective duties. In the loss and damage lists I have found different designations for the same Werknummer e.g. Bf 109G-1/R2 Y, Bf 109G-1, Bf 109G-1/R2, which would significate in my understanding:
1st damage with a bomb rack attached and a built-in FuG 16ZY
2nd damage with the bomb rack removed and the FuG 16ZY removed and a re-installed FuG VIIa
last damage and loss with the bomb rack re-applied and the FuG VIIa radio equipment still installed.
Note: This system is only valid for the fighter and fighter-bomber variants. The system for the Bf 109 reconnaissance variants, though seeming quite the same, has completely different features for a /R2 or a /R3
The R6 is a similar problem- the Bf109G-6/R6 did NOT appear on the identification plate, though guns and wiring were installed when the fighter was delivered - like Rasmussen writes "a Bf109 with the Rüstzustand VII"(in the official papers). The cannon set could be easily removed and when such a plane came down it obviously was listed as a simple Bf 109G-6. When the fighter was lost with MG 151/20s attached it (maybe!) could be listed as Bf 109G-6/R6. In the wreck you would only find the type plate "Bf 109G-6".
That´s how I understand it....

Servus

Roland

[the_ivan]

But with that particular example there is a problem: the Bf 109 G1/R2 was a lightened version without armour, self-sealing tanks, etc. So it seems that the second time it was damaged they just didn't recorded the full designation of this variant (the lack of Y might meand 16ZY removed, but later this designation was removed when became more common equipment).

[AFROBINSON808]

On PreservedAxisAircraft's Bf 109 page, I saw a G-2 that had been recovered from Norway, and the site described it as a Bf 109G-2/R1. I assume it had the Rüstsatz R1 designation and normal undercarriage when it went down, am I right?

[Denniss]

10 G-2/R1 were built by WNF, in what configuration is unknown.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had wet wings just like the later G-4/R3 and G-6/R3 recons (also WNF-built).
On dataplates you'll never find a Rüstsatz designation, these are Rüststand/Rüstzustand.
The E-1 to E-4 received the /B designation if fitted with bomb release mechanism and bomb carriers - these were neither standard equipment nor available as Rüstsatz. E-7 and F were prepared to carry bombs or fuel tanks -> Rüstsatz.
The F-4/R1 was a Rüstzustand designation as it carried nonstandard preparations for underwing gondola guns. Became standard in the 109G -> Rüstsatz

I'm not aware of a Rüstzustand VII in the Bf 109G, judging from the roman numerals it's most likely Rüstsatz VII Peilrahmen. There's a Rüstzustand 6 though (all weather fighter (which most likely includes R VII)).

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

Just to add my two cents to this discussion all that I have seen states that the various Rüstsätze were never included in the aircraft's designation, such as in loss lists, for example. Rüstzustände, on the other hand, were included in the aircraft's designation and thus are mentioned in loss lists, the same as Umrüst-Bausätze. In the specific case of the Bf 109 G-2/R1 this should be referring to a Bf 109 G-2 fitted with a ETC 500/IXb bombrack under the fuselage as well as two 300 liter drop tanks under the wings, basically a JaboRei or long-range fighter-bomber. The source of the confusion is that prior to the clarification between Rüstsätze and Rüstzustände, many authors in the past would identify the former as R1, R2, R3, R6 and so on when in fact these should have been identified as Rüstsatz I, Rüstsatz II, Rüstsatz III and Rüstsatz VI, thus causing a mix-up between the two types of designations. Any comments or corrections to this will be most welcome.

Horrido!

Leo