How did the Rüstsatz system work?

[Kutscha]

An aviation expert from Florida says that only A-5 and earlier Fw190s could have the outer guns removed. His reasoning for A-6 and later Fw190s is that this was not an authorized loadout and would upset the CG of the a/c.

[harrison987]

Originally Posted by Denniss

Adding a Rüstsatz to a Bf 109 did not change the designation.
The G-6/R3 was a long-range recon bird with reduced armament (just cannon).
A standard 109G had no equipment installed to support underwing drop tanks.

That is what I said.

The Rüstsatz "field" kits were labelled with the letter "R" and a Roman numeral...as opposed to the Arabic Numeral. It also did not alter the the aircraft type. So an Me109 G-6 with Rüstsatz II (50 kg/110 lb bombs) remained an Me109 G-6 and not G-6/R2, which was a reconnaissance fighter with MW 50.

Adding the equipment in the field did not change it's "official" designation.

The underwing drop tanks were available from the G2 through the the G8. And there is at least one report mentioning a G6/R3 with wing drop tanks.

The G6/R3 designation you mention as only having a single cannon is not correct, as there are numerous photos of the G6/R3 with the dual MG131

As I said, it was a confusing system, and the same designations had different meanings for some of the models.

[Graham Boak]

Hello Bronc. Yes, a hit on a box of ball ammunition wouldn't have so much effect, but I never suggested that it would. That wasn't my point. Your argument was against wing-mounting cannon whereas the same explosive effect would occur wherever the box of cannon ammunition was placed.

You may well have seen a lot of such examples from camera film but you are still only describing your impression, not backing this with numbers.

What is impossible to judge is how the losses from such positioning compared with the losses or gains from any other design FW could have produced in the same timescale that placed the guns and their feed elsewhere. This couldn't be done without affecting other features of the design. The Russians did eventually manage to fit four cannon in the nose of their La 7, but this was a different, lighter, cannon, and would suffer from a reduction in firing rate due to synchronisation.

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by harrison987

As mentioned above, many of the factory installed R equipment (R1, R2, R3, R6, etc.) was removed...albeit usually due to the lack of performance that was a result of the installation. So in the end, there were a lot of parts and equipment laying around.

The field installed equipment (RI, RII, RII, RVI, etc.) I suspect was maybe just the units way of re-installing the already removed equipment that was on-hand?

Harrison987 is providing some much needed clarity, finally, as none of the published material (that I know of) provides it.

The question that I'm trying to get to--in a round about sort of way--is what were all the different ways that units were trying to adapt and cope by improving the performance of their aircraft in the field. And how much modification flexibility was the local, regional and high command structure affording those units. Removing all the unnecessary weight out the aircraft was critical, but who was making those choices and how were they authorized?

Bronc

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear harrison987,

Let me add my voice to those also learning from your information.

However, let me throw in a bit of confusion. I have seen or have a document somewhere that lists designations of R1, R2, etc. as they would apply to jet aircraft as a whole. I think it is a late war document. Yet, being familiar with the Me 262, this list doesn't match up with the actual configurations for the Me 262. The impression I got was that the list was an attempt at forming a uniform set of designations, but failed to take into account how the Me 262's were already identified. The list may have been a "flyer" created by someone who didn't understand the system, but has apparently been used by some authors to provide bogus Me 262 designations.

Add to this that basic aircraft configuration designations actually changed with time. For instance, Me 262A-1a was to be for purely fighter types with 4 MK 108's. Then the Me 262A-2a came along and this had only 2 MK 108 and 2 bomb racks. There then became a temporary designation for Me 262's equipped with 4 MK 108's and 2 bomb racks. Eventually, it was clearly decided to make this capability standard, meaning that the aircraft was capable of carrying bomb racks. This became the Me 262A-1a and the production of Me 262A-2a's was to be terminated.

As I have found with camouflage schemes, there were so many exceptions to supposed rules that the rules could, at best, be only used as a guide. David E. Brown has actually made a specialty of this, trying to determine which production site produced or which unit used which Me 262 based on that site's or unit's camouflage pattern.

Regards,
Richard

[Denniss]

Originally Posted by harrison987

The underwing drop tanks were available from the G2 through the the G8. And there is at least one report mentioning a G6/R3 with wing drop tanks.

The G6/R3 designation you mention as only having a single cannon is not correct, as there are numerous photos of the G6/R3 with the dual MG131

Available yes but only in the specialized variants like /R3. Standard versions were not prepared to take them.
The MG ammo box space was supposed to be used for a 20 liter oil tank (per G-4/R3 manual) so either they changed something for the G-6/R3, these pictured guns were dummies or they weren't G-6/R3 aircraft.

[ArtieBob]

Perhaps a source to search for some material on the Rüstsatz system would be the CIOS reports. IIRC there is a detailed report that deals with the RLM/Luftwaffe system for aircraft modification and a copy of the report was available at USNA College Park.

Best Regards,

ArtieBob

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

Regarding the removal of the outer wing-mounted cannon on the Fw 190 A-series, it is true that according to the production sheets for the Fw 190 A-2 through A-5 this installation was optional and the MG FF/M cannons and their magazines and ammunition could be removed whereas the production sheets for the Fw 190 A-6 through A-9 describe the the MG 151/20E cannons as mandatory equipment and there is no mention of any possibility of removal. That being said, there is considerable photographic evidence that these weapons were occasionally removed and an example would be Fw 190 A-8 "White 13" (W.Nr. 171 747) that was being ferried by Johannes Kuhn of 3./Überführungsgruppe West to JG 26 at Brussels-Melsbroek when he decided to defect and belly-landed near Monkton in Kent on 30 August 1944. Another point of interest is that this aircraft was fitted with a BMW 801 TU engine. More about this Dutchman who served with the Luftwaffe can be found at http://www.stiwotforum.nl/viewtopic.php?t=8162



Horrido!

Leo

[S Sheflin]

Hello Leo,

Slightly off topic, but regarding the engine of Fw 190 A-8, WNr. 171747, your comment that “this aircraft was fitted with a BMW 801 TU engine,” is of great interest to me.

CEA 250 indicates that it was fitted with BMW 801, Motornummer 332379 (BMW F/M, München, Werke Allach, Hersteller code = jha). NOTE: CEA 250 actually says, "Q-2 or G-2" (it’s hard to read) but I have always assumed that it was just another of many errors in the CEA reports.

To that point, I have no records of any “Q-2” engines, and, the “G” was geared differently from the “D” and was used on bombers. Also, MNr. 332379 falls within other documented BMW 801 D-2 MNrn. Finally, I have zero references to any ”801 TU” engines at all.

If you have information or documentation showing that it was actually powered by a BMW 801 TU, I would love to update my files.

Steve Sheflin

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Denniss

Available yes but only in the specialized variants like /R3. Standard versions were not prepared to take them.
The MG ammo box space was supposed to be used for a 20 liter oil tank (per G-4/R3 manual) so either they changed something for the G-6/R3, these pictured guns were dummies or they weren't G-6/R3 aircraft.

From ULTRA:

CX/MSS/R114(C),8
Note seen by source dated 13/2:
Me 109 G-6/R3, W.Nr. 20373, marking 5, taken over on 13/2 from Workshop Guyancourt. Armament 1 MG 151/(C%20) (mech.), 1 FuG 25A, 1 rotary converter 17.

This aircraft went to 4.(F)/123 which seemed to prefer reduced armament on its aircraft. It had many others, not specifically described as /R3, which still had the just the one gun. Of course the correspondence may not always have quoted the complete designation but I think Guyancourt was just converting aircraft to the configuration that each Staffel wanted: NAG 13 109s mostly carried three guns while 4. and 5.(F)/123 mostly had one; NAG 13 and FAG 123 used different cameras.