Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Naudet]

Kurfürst, we speak of the same report and yes i own the entire document.

I find it pretty funny that you say the FW190 was choosen because the LW in the West faced mostly bombers, which for 1941 (and this is the time of the report) werer the LW almost only battled RAF fighters is really not true.

I also highly doubt that the report was "biased" towards the FW190 in case of maneuverability.
You seem  reduce maneuverability to pure horizontal turning, which is wrong, but for horizontal turns the report states "Ob die FW190 enger kurvt als die Bf109 konnte noch nicht eindeutig festgestellt werden" (It could not be cleared yet if the the FW190 turns tighter as the Bf109).

For the dive it is important to know that the FW190 had several hundred meters margin over the Bf109 after dives of only 2000 meters.

That the FW190 doesn't accel as fast as the Bf109F is not surprising, because it climbs at a lower rate and therefore one can expect it to accelerate slower as well.
Also the lacking high alt performances is not surprising.
This is what btw became more important when the USAAF bombers appeared in the west.

But even for this Focke Wulf found a solution. Both the FW190A3 & A4 could be outfitted with external intake strokes which improved the "critical" altittude were the plane got "floaty" from 8km to 9,5km.

And the most important thing is that the trial was between a fully developed Bf109 variant, were all teething problems had long been solved with a variant of the FW190 which was heavily suffering from engine reliability probs.


If the Bf109 would have been clearly superior to the FW190 it also puzzles me that the RLM in 1945 decided to disband all Bf109s and as sole porpeller driven fighter keep the FW190D9/D12/D13 & TA152 in production?

The Bf109 was an very good design when it appeared and until 1941, but after that it was becominh more and more outdated by more modern designs.
I like the Bf109, especially the Bf109F - not as much as the FW190 though -  but i don't try to make it better than it was.

In September 1944, Bf 109G Werknummer 410 528 was built with a Jumo 213 E (same as in Ta-152H), four blade porpellor, being a prototype for an unarmed, high alt photo recce

I somewhere have a couple of performance graphs for a JUMO213A Bf109. Will check that next year.

[Crumpp]

To add to Naudets post:

It was a BMW 801C powered FW-190A.  A very different airplane from the much more powerful BMW801D2.  Around 150 801C powered FW-190's were built and within a few short months of the FW-190's introduction the 801D's were on the scene.

The BMW801C FW-190's did have some disadvantages against the Bf-109.

Once the BMW-801D2 powered FW-190's came on the scene the Bf-109 at low altitude was outperformed by it's FW-190 contemporary for the rest of the war.

Crumpp

[HoHun]

Hi Kurfürst,

>Hi Henning! Which protocol is that ? AFAIK, Milch kept the 109 developments "in fire", in case of the Ta152 projects fail.

The protocol is one of many quoted in Petrick/Mankau's Zerstörer book mentioned here:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137686

I'm relying on my memory though as I don't own that book and - after reading it with a focus on the tactical aspects of the destroyer concept - already returned it to its owner.

>I disagree though about the 605 reaching the end of it`s development, 2.3ata was planned for the 605D which would mean about 2300 HP, and from what I gathered an equivalent of the 605L (two staged 605D) was most likely put in production and saw operation.

Hm, the 2300 HP would have been only available at low altitude, so it might not have helped that much in the tactical situation the Luftwaffe found itself in.

The DB605L on the other hand was specialized on high-altitude performance and about equivalent to the Jumo 213E there, but the Jumo offered high power throughout the entire altitude range. (From what I've read, the Jumo gave higher exhaust thrust than the DB engines, and that might have made it a better engine than the shaft power parity suggests.)

I won't say there wasn't any potential left in the DB605 and accordingly, in the Me 109, too, but the reserves weren't affluent any more.

>Details in Radinger/Otto! There are also some DB 603 projects in that projected 109 curves PDF.

I got that book - seems it's in the Anton to Emil volume as I couldn't find it in the Gustav to Konrad one!

>Though putting the 603N with all that power sounds a little pervert - it might rip itself out of the fuselage!

Actually, the protocols I mentioned talk repeatedly about strengthening the airframe structure against torsional stresses when re-engining an aircraft, so fear is probably realistic :-)

>Agree! Still I cannot imagine how would they do w/o the 109.

Griehl quotes some conversion plans of the late-war Luftwaffe.

8.2.1945: All Bf 109 units were planned for conversion to the Bf 109K-4, except those with the G-10/R6 which were to convert to the K-4/R6. (I've heard the Konrad's R6 is not the same as the Gustav's R6, but from the context it's clear that the plan refers to gondola cannon.)

20.03.1945: Conversion to/continued use of:

He 162A-1/A-2
Bf 109G-10/R6 (JG300)
Bf 109K-4/K-6 (K-6 apparently with internal wing cannon, replacing the /R6)
Bf 109K-4/R6 (apparently already in service with KG(J)30?!)
Fw 190A-8/A-9/D-9/D-11/D-12/D-13
Ta 152H-10
Me 262A-1a

(Standardization within a Geschwader was an important goal. Often Bf 109 fighter groups were combined with Fw 190 Sturm groups, but the opposite combination was possible as well. There were more Bf 109G/R6 groups than Fw 190 Sturm groups, by the way!)

In 1944, the plan had been (figures for production per month):

Type        1944/7   1944/12    1945/7    1946/3
Bf 109G/AS     100         0         0         0
Bf 109G       1700       150         0         0
Bf 109H          0      1200       210        50
Fw 190A        750       560       150       150
Fw 190D-9        0       700       280         0
Ta 152A          0         0       470       750
Ta 152H          0         0       700       700
Me 262A         60       220      1200      1500
Me 163B         15        50         0         0
Me 163C          0         0        50        50

Of course, the RLM plans never were met and changed erratically anyway, but it shows the thinking at the time: The Bf 109H appeared like an easy conversion from the Bf 109G so that entire production lines could be switched over easily, Fw 190A production was reduced quickly, probably probably as fighter bomber, the Fw 190D with Jumo 213A (for brevity I called it D-9 above) was a stopgap until the fully developed Ta 152 could be introduced as a high altitude fighter primarily, and the Me 262 was scheduled for massive production in late 1945. The Me 163 was kept in small scale production probably because the RLM lacked the determination to kill it entirely :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Crumpp]

Fw 190 Sturm groups

There is a tendancy to view all FW-190's on the Western Front as "Sturm".  In fact the entire Luftwaffe only had three Gruppes of Sturmjager FW-190's.  The majority of FW's were employed in the air superiority role.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Naudet
Kurfürst, we speak of the same report and yes i own the entire document.

[/B]

I collect such reports, esp. as it`s now being discussed at butch`s. Could you send it over to my email at executor@index.hu ? I am sure Crumpp would be interested too!

I find it pretty funny that you say the FW190 was choosen because the LW in the West faced mostly bombers, which for 1941 (and this is the time of the report) werer the LW almost only battled RAF fighters is really not true..

[/B]

Hmm, the British were mounting bomber raids over France right from the start of 1941, the USAAF appeared in 1942 when the FW 190 actually come into operation in real numbers, so that`s the best reason I can think of. If it would have been just superior to the 109, it would simply replace it. It never did, more like it supported it. Also if you look at the effectiveness of 109 unit.. JG 52, enough said.



I also highly doubt that the report was "biased" towards the FW190 in case of maneuverability.
You seem  reduce maneuverability to pure horizontal turning, which is wrong, but for horizontal turns the report states "Ob die FW190 enger kurvt als die Bf109 konnte noch nicht eindeutig festgestellt werden" (It could not be cleared yet if the the FW190 turns tighter as the Bf109).


Turning of course does not equal manouveribility, but by all sense the 109 was clearly better in this - wingloading, powerloading, handling, slats etc.. And appearantly the 109`s roll rate was not exactly lacking either.

Niklas posted this on butch`s board recently. Appearantly it`s always worth to rely on several sources!

Beauvais, the german chief test pilot in Rechin, wrote in a text about the 109:

"
Comparison flight tests:
...
Me109F against fw190A2. In autumn 41 Gollob came to rechlin with the order to compare the BF 109 to the FW 190. He and his fellows prefered instincivly the 190. Their control forces were lower, the roll rate approx 1/4 higher, the view backward better. The 801 engine was considered less vulnerable to hits. One was happy with the larger gear (wheel distance) and considered the cell of the 190 more robust for emergency landings (without gear out). So Gollob and his men didn´t really wanted to accept that the 109 turned with lower turn times, which was already clear at the first afternoon Gollob evased in his report and wrote: Whether the fw190 turned tighter than the 109 couldn´t be clarified definitly" () "



For the dive it is important to know that the FW190 had several hundred meters margin over the Bf109 after dives of only 2000 meters.

It`s quite logical with it`s higher mass and wingloading, it would loose height more quickly. On the other hand it picked up speed more slowly, which would turn the tables if the dives are followed by zoom climbs.

That the FW190 doesn't accel as fast as the Bf109F is not surprising, because it climbs at a lower rate and therefore one can expect it to accelerate slower as well.

Yep, I guess overall drag was also higher on the radial airframe. Powerloading can also mean a lot.



Also the lacking high alt performances is not surprising.
This is what btw became more important when the USAAF bombers appeared in the west.
But even for this Focke Wulf found a solution. Both the FW190A3 & A4 could be outfitted with external intake strokes which improved the "critical" altittude were the plane got "floaty" from 8km to 9,5km.

?? I am not aware of that. Don`t you refer to GM-1? The 1.5km altitude change points to that..

And the most important thing is that the trial was between a fully developed Bf109 variant, were all teething problems had long been solved with a variant of the FW190 which was heavily suffering from engine reliability probs.

It may be a reason, but I don`t think it would change much in this regard; both types were improved later.


If the Bf109 would have been clearly superior to the FW190 it also puzzles me that the RLM in 1945 decided to disband all Bf109s and as sole porpeller driven fighter keep the FW190D9/D12/D13 & TA152 in production?

Hmm, I didn`t say it was clearly superior in all and every respects. I do hold it superior as a pure fighter though, but not by much. In most other roles, the 190 was better. And regarding that "RLM decision in 1945", HoHun just posted Feb1945 plans which not exactly show this trend (K-4s to the People)... Not to mention production of the 109 was kept up at a high pace through the war, and they always outnumbered 190s in service (something like 3:2).


The Bf109 was an very good design when it appeared and until 1941, but after that it was becominh more and more outdated by more modern designs.

Like? This '1941 clausule' sounds 'carsonish'. I think the 109 was quite competitive until the wars end, and it`s not an exxegeration to say it was better than most it faced. Let`s face it, in it as tradiationally strong points, the 190 could not compete with it, not even the latest variants (and this is also true vica versa).


I like the Bf109, especially the Bf109F - not as much as the FW190 though -  but i don't try to make it better than it was.


Neither I, but I think it`s very much underrated, at least in anglo-saxon literature.
 

I somewhere have a couple of performance graphs for a JUMO213A Bf109. Will check that next year.

LOL!!

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by HoHun


>Details in Radinger/Otto! There are also some DB 603 projects in that projected 109 curves PDF.

I got that book - seems it's in the Anton to Emil volume as I couldn't find it in the Gustav to Konrad one!

Page 32 in the F-K!


>Though putting the 603N with all that power sounds a little pervert - it might rip itself out of the fuselage!

Actually, the protocols I mentioned talk repeatedly about strengthening the airframe structure against torsional stresses when re-engining an aircraft, so fear is probably realistic :-)

It would be the fastest aero engine of the world then!



Griehl quotes some conversion plans of the late-war Luftwaffe.

8.2.1945: All Bf 109 units were planned for conversion to the Bf 109K-4, except those with the G-10/R6 which were to convert to the K-4/R6. (I've heard the Konrad's R6 is not the same as the Gustav's R6, but from the context it's clear that the plan refers to gondola cannon.)

20.03.1945: Conversion to/continued use of:

He 162A-1/A-2
Bf 109G-10/R6 (JG300)
Bf 109K-4/K-6 (K-6 apparently with internal wing cannon, replacing the /R6)
Bf 109K-4/R6 (apparently already in service with KG(J)30?!)
Fw 190A-8/A-9/D-9/D-11/D-12/D-13
Ta 152H-10
Me 262A-1a

(Standardization within a Geschwader was an important goal. Often Bf 109 fighter groups were combined with Fw 190 Sturm groups, but the opposite combination was possible as well. There were more Bf 109G/R6 groups than Fw 190 Sturm groups, by the way!)

The /R6 was not gondola guns on either the G or K! Rustsatz VI. (IV. on the K) was the gondolas, but this doesn`t show up in the desination.

Rustzustand 6, the /R6 was the installation of bad weather equipment on the G-10 and K-4, an autopilot stabilizing the a/c. Think about the role of JG 300 (day/night)!

Otherwise highly interesting, thanks!

[Crumpp]

Beauvais, the german chief test pilot in Rechin, wrote in a text about the 109:

That is interesting because Beauvais clearly states in the report that Gollob was prejudicial to the 109.  In fact Gollob selected the call sign's for the aircraft.  

For the 109 - "Adler"
For the 190 - "Otto"

All before the first flight took place.  Gollob's report reads:





Here is the 109F series:



And it's FW-190A 801D2 powered contemporary:



You can see from the production of 801C-powered FW-190A's that there were not very many of them produced.  Only the initial production run of FW-190A2's had the BMW801C as the one in this test, AFAIK.  The majority were produced with the BMW801D2:



For the 109G14:



Even the older model FW-190A5 is faster on the deck and I will wager, just as Willi Reschke claims, the FW-190A climbs better at lower altitudes.





The FW-190A8 is even faster with the BMW801D2Q and even faster with the BMW801TS.

Now as I understand it.  The 109K4 was not cleared for 1.98ata with MW50 until the last months of the war.  At that point, it is equal to the FW-190A8/801TS or FW-190A9 on the deck.  The FW-190D series is much faster by this time than either of them.

At high altitudes the 109 was superior but at lower altitudes the FW-190 was hands down the better fighter for air-to-air combat.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Crumpp
That is interesting because Beauvais clearly states in the report that Gollob was prejudicial to the 109.  

That`s a highly subjective understanding of what Beauvais "clearly states" :


"In autumn 41 Gollob came to rechlin with the order to compare the BF 109 to the FW 190. He and his fellows prefered instincivly the 190."


In fact Gollob selected the call sign's for the aircraft.
For the 109 - "Adler"
For the 190 - "Otto"

And...?

All before the first flight took place.  Gollob's report reads:

Can I see the full report?



Here is the 109F series:
And it's FW-190A 801D2 powered contemporary:

Hmm, the 801D2 power FWs were contemporary to the F-4 and G-2 in 1942. At that time, the D-2 engine was restricted to 1.32ata, the F-4 already run at 1.42ata, the G-2 at 1.3ata.

At these boost, sl speeds were the following :

190 A-3/4 : 540 kph (from crummps curves)
109 F-4 : 537 kph
109 G-2 : 525 kph

ROC of the FW190 is ~15.5. ROC of the G-2 was 21m/sec - at Kampfleistung! I guess the F-4 was similiar on full power.

I don`t see the advantage you are talking about. The superiority at altitude for the 109 is, however, clear.

The below is from flight tests in Rechlin, F-4 vs. A-2 :




The performance data for the Bf 109 F-4 and the FW 190 A-1 or A-2 (FW 190 with engine BMW 801 C) were flown, the data for the modified FW 190 A-2 (FW 190 with engine BMW 801 D) and the Me 109 G project however only calculated.

The tests show the clear advantage of the 109F-4 over the contemporary FW 190A-2 in both speed and climb at ALL altitudes.



For the 109G14 and 109K4:

Even the older model FW-190A5 is faster on the deck and I will wager, just as Willi Reschke claims, the FW-190A climbs better at lower altitudes.

Huh? SL speeds :

A-5 : 565 kph
G-14 : 568 kph
G-14/AS : 560 km/
K-4 :
-580 kph with DM (early engine, replaced by DB/DC after a few intial aircraft)
-593 w. DB 1.8
-607 kph w. DC/1.98

All 1944 109s are just as fast as the 190As, the K is considerably faster, even at low levels.


As for climb rates, even the claim is ridiculus that the 190 would compete w the 109. The lowest climb rate you would find for an 1944 109 was 22-23 m/sec at full power. Even the best climbing D-9, after equipped w. MW50 in 1945, was good for no more than ca. 22m/sec. The other As could do about 17-18 m/sec at best...



Now as I understand it.  The 109K4 was not cleared for 1.98ata with MW50 until the last months of the war.  At that point, it is equal to the FW-190A8/801TS or FW-190A9 on the deck.  The FW-190D series is much faster by this time than either of them.

As for 1.98ata, I have seen evidence that DB was supplying the frontline with the engines set to 1.98ata already in 1944.
Dec 5 handbook of the DB/DC notes the use of 1.98ata, and no restrictions mentioned. If you know any evidence to the contrary, please let me know. I haven`t seen any.

I`d like to see evidence of the A8/TS and the A-9 ever coming near 600kph on the deck. The D-9s did not receive serially built in MW 50 until early 1945, even with which their speed was only marginally higher than the 109K`s at 1.98ata (615kph vs. 607 kph).



At high altitudes the 109 was superior but at lower altitudes the FW-190 was hands down the better fighter for air-to-air combat.


Actually the FW 190`s only advantage over the 109 was roll rate, and 2-30 kph speed at the deck in 1943. In all other respects, turn rate, acceleration, and especially climb rate, the 109 was superior. The 190A was not really mature until 1943...

[Angus]

Here is something for the cake.
I am not sure of Gollob's situation, but Milch (Who was one bloody Bastard) had some thorn in Willy Messerchmitt's side.
Some however may not have liked Tank & co.
Nazi-Time Germany was quite special in these things. Be on the wrong side of some high figure, and you would find yourself dead or at the red front before you knew what hit you.
Even Hugo Junkers himself got caught up in the political mincer.
Genius tacticians like Galland were imprisoned, with the subtle suggestion of taiking poison. Which some did, as Rommel, - he had to choose between dishonorable execution or taking cyanide.
Anyway, when viewing old documents from Germany,comparing those 2 fine aircraft, keep this in mind.

Now to one angle comparing the 190 and 109.
Those who fought them on the western front usually had one meaning.
The 190 was faster and better armed.It was a more dangerous opponent.
I've seen this in countless anecdotes, again and again. The 190 was almost always considered faster and more dangerous.
So, I guess there must be a foot to that,,,


Anyway, friends and foes alike on these threads, I basically popped in to wish you a good new year.
Crumpp, Milo, Nash, Hohun, Izzy, Guppy, Naudet, Karnak, Mando, Scholzie, Furbie and all ye others.....


HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Crumpp]

Izzy that climb graph for the FW-190A5 represents a FW-190 with cooling gills open.  Just like any aircraft drop the drag and it climb better.  Got the graphs and it improves the climb.  

It also does not show climb rate at higher boost pressures.

According to Willi Reschke:

"Below 5000 meters the FW-190A8 was superior in the climb.  It's manuverability was much better due to it's lower stick forces."


The FW 190A3 chart shows 1 minute to  1000 meters cooling gills open.  The 109's climbed standard at radiators half open IIRC.

Hmm, the 801D2 power FWs were contemporary to the F-4 and G-2 in 1942. At that time, the D-2 engine was restricted to 1.32ata, the F-4 already run at 1.42ata, the G-2 at 1.3ata.

The FW-190's were not restricted to 1.32ata.  1.42ata @ 2700U/min was Emergency Power.   They were faster than the 109's.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Izzy that climb graph for the FW-190A5 represents a FW-190 with cooling gills open. Just like any aircraft drop the drag and it climb better. Got the graphs and it improves the climb.

True for all aircraft, so pretty much irrevelant. Besides I think the 109 would gain more from closing the radiators, they created far more drag when open the gills on fw.

It also does not show climb rate at higher boost pressures.

Yep, but even at higher boost it would be inferior to the 109 at lower boost. I don`t know any FW 190A that would manage over 4000 fpm. Even the 109G-2 at lower boost pressures could manage 4800...


According to Willi Reschke:

"Below 5000 meters the FW-190A8 was superior in the climb. It's manuverability was much better due to it's lower stick forces."

Given the evidence of flight tests, he is wrong.


The FW 190A3 chart shows 1 minute to 1000 meters cooling gills open. The 109's climbed standard at radiators half open IIRC.


The 109`s radiators were set automatically to maintain 85 degrees. They could be closed manually. The engine was allowed to run w 115 Celsius for 10 minutes...



The FW-190's were not restricted to 1.32ata. 1.42ata @ 2700U/min was Emergency Power.

No, they were, for a time, to 1.35iirc, they had cooling problems (rear cylinder banks).


They were faster than the 109's.

Not according to Rechlin.

[MANDO]

Kurfürst, you seem to focus the advantages and dissadvantages of 190 and 109 in something like 1 vs 1 engangements, but aerial war does not work this way.

For many vs many, I will bet for 190s always, even including 109K. Firepower, visibility, armour and high speed control count much more than turn rate at low speeds or substained climb rate.

[Crumpp]

rue for all aircraft, so pretty much irrevelant. Besides I think the 109 would gain more from closing the radiators, they created far more drag when open the gills on fw.

The FW-190 does make some pretty good gains and given the design of the aircraft I have to disagree on this one.  The largest gains in climb for the FW-190, though come from the prop changes.

No, they were, for a time, to 1.35iirc, they had cooling problems (rear cylinder banks).

That problems was solved before they left the test staffle and was something for the FW-190A0 not FW-190A1,2 or 3.

Not according to Rechlin.

According to the Rechlin test's I have.  In fact even the Messerschmitt factory test's of an FW-190A5 vs Bf-109G1 say the FW-190 is faster.  Now there is data out there you can compare from different non-comparative flight tests that agrees with what your saying Izzy.  Problem comes from every flight test in which the 109 and 190 (801D2) were flown together, the FW-190 is faster.

Given the evidence of flight tests, he is wrong.

No he is not.   Gotta do a little more research and I will post the documents and graphsto prove it.  Gotta dig them out and scan them in.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190 does make some pretty good gains and given the design of the aircraft I have to disagree on this one.  The largest gains in climb for the FW-190, though come from the prop changes.


Hmm, to my knowladge the cooling grills only effected the amount of airflow through the engine, not much extra drag with their operation..I have some data for 109s on that, the radiators when open effectively work as DIVE BREAKS : min. 50-60 kph worth of drag! I doubt the 190s cooling grills would be THAT serious.
 

That problems was solved before they left the test staffle and was something for the FW-190A0 not FW-190A1,2 or 3.

I am absolutely open to hear more on that, as I was always told that the A-3 and (early?) A-4 were derated to 1.35ata. The A-5 certainly lifted this, the lenghtened engine bay solved the overheating of rear cylinders. You should keep in mind the A-3`s more powerful D-2 engine made more heat, than in the A-2s..



According to the Rechlin test's I have.  In fact even the Messerschmitt factory test's of an FW-190A5 vs Bf-109G1 say the FW-190 is faster.

What boost, what model, what altitude? At full power, the 190A5 should be faster at low levels by about 30 kph from what I have seen. At high altitude...by 4km, the A-5 does 608, the G-1 602 (however at only 1.3ata!), F-4 does 620.. At 10km, A-5 does 582 on your FW chart, the F-4 does 620.. G-1 : 640 kph... K-4, 680+ iirc. but I`d love to see that test! Especially as it concerns the 109, too.

Now there is data out there you can compare from different non-comparative flight tests that agrees with what your saying Izzy.  Problem comes from every flight test in which the 109 and 190 (801D2) were flown together, the FW-190 is faster.

To me the problem comes from I have never seen any such test, crumpp, expect the Rechlin one I just posted. And I am distrustful for other`s interpretation for a good reason, we are all victims of our own subjectiveness.



No he is not.   Gotta do a little more research and I will post the documents and graphsto prove it.  Gotta dig them out and scan them in.

Well I am absolutely open to anything new, but still, for the 190A to outclimb any 109, even at Kampleistung, should do at least 18-20 m/sec. Only the D-9/152 was capable of that, in 1945. But prove me wrong!

[HoHun]

Hi Kurfürst,

>Page 32 in the F-K!

Ah, now it's in the book again ;-) OK, the Jumo 213E was mounted in the Me 109, and the plane flew. I wonder whether there were any structural limitations (like reduced G loads) or whether it was cleared for the entire envelope, but as it seems no data has survived, it's impossible to tell :-(

>It would be the fastest aero engine of the world then!

LOL! Duck and cover!

>The /R6 was not gondola guns on either the G or K! Rustsatz VI. (IV. on the K) was the gondolas, but this doesn`t show up in the desination.

>Rustzustand 6, the /R6 was the installation of bad weather equipment on the G-10 and K-4, an autopilot stabilizing the a/c. Think about the role of JG 300 (day/night)!

Hm, I didn't initially believe that, but I think you may actually be right. The /R6 were used by: JG300, JG301, KG(J)6, KG(J)27, KG(J)30. Was the Fw 190A-9/R11 the all-weather version as well? JG301 had one group of these, to be replaced with the Bf 109K-4/R6.

Since JG300 was also pioneering the Sturmjäger concept, I assumed it was all about the cannon gondolas, but it seems I was wrong.

So forget what I said about the Sturmgruppen!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)