ME 109g-6 u4 arnaments?

[RalphZimmer]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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]

Originally Posted by Rasmussen

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 :



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

[Rasmussen]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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