PDA

View Full Version : moonknight82


CrankyBulletcup
10-05-2009, 10:20 PM
When you told me that the Germans never added machine guns/cannons to the wings of the 109's, then you must not of done your research so here is my research read and cry:

Armament and gondola cannons

Reflecting Messerschmitt's belief in low-weight, low-drag, simple monoplanes, the armament was placed in the fuselage: two synchronized machine guns, just as in a typical biplane fighter like the Albatros D.Va, were mounted in the cowling, firing over the top of the engine and through the propeller arc. As an alternative, a single high-performance cannon (or 'shell-gun', as sometimes referred in the 1930s) firing through the cylinder banks through a blast tube, with the engine buffering the recoil was considered from the start.[9] This was also the choice of armament layout on some contemporary French monoplane fighters, such as the Dewoitine D.520.[Notes 4] Conforming to Prof. Messerschmitt's ethos, this kept his gun-free wings very thin and lightweight.

When it was discovered in 1937 that the RAF was planning eight-gun batteries for its new monoplane fighters - the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire) - it became clear the Bf 109 would need to carry more weaponry; a new wing was designed to carry machine guns, and later, 20 mm MG FF cannon configurations. The problem was that when it came to fitting additional armament, the only place in which it could be located was in the wings. However, the positions of the undercarriage bays, main spar and wing slats meant that room was limited to two bays between the undercarriage and slats. There was room for only one weapon per wing, either a 7.92 mm MG 17 machine gun, or a 20 mm MG FF or MG FF/M cannon. The first version of the 109 to have wing guns was the C-1, which had one MG 17 per wing fitted in the inner bays. To avoid redesigning the wing to accommodate large ammunition boxes and access hatches, an unusual ammunition feed was devised whereby a continuous belt holding 500 rounds was fed along chutes out to the wing tips. The belt was fed around a roller and back along the wing, forward and beneath the gun breech, to the wing root where it was fed around another roller and back to the weapon. The gun barrels were buried in long, large diameter tubes between the spar and the leading edge. These tubes channelled cooling air around the barrels and breeches and out of a slot at the rear of the wing diaphragm and top of the flap. Room was still so restricted that parts of the MG 17's breech mechanism poked into an accommodating hole in the flap structure. The much longer and heavier MG FF had to be mounted in the outer bay. A large hole was cut through the spar webbing to allow the cannon to be fitted with an ammunition feed forward of the spar, with the rear breech block projecting through the spar. The 60-round ammunition drum was placed in the machine-gun compartment; a small hatch incorporating a blister was needed in the wing lower surface to allow access to change the drum. The entire weapon could be removed for servicing by removing a leading edge panel.
From the 109F-series onwards, guns were no longer carried inside the wings – a noteworthy exception was Adolf Galland's field-modified Bf 109 F-2, which had a 20 mm MG FF/M installed internally in each wing. Only some of the late 109K-series models, such as the K-6, were planned to carry 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannons in the wings.

In place of internal wing armament, additional firepower was provided through a pair of 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons in conformal gun pods, installed under the wings. Although the additional armament increased the fighter's potency as a bomber destroyer, it had an adverse affect on the handling qualities, reducing its competence in fighter-versus-fighter combat and accentuating the tendency of the fighter to swing pendulum-fashion in flight. The conformal gun pods, without ammunition, weighed 135 kg (298 lb); and 135 to 145 rounds were provided per gun. The total weight, including ammunition, was 215 kg. Installation of the underwing gun pods was a simple task that could be quickly performed by the unit's armourers, and imposed a reduction of speed of only 8 km/h (5 mph). By comparison, the installed weight of a similar armament of two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon inside the wings of the FW 190A-4/U8 was 130 kg (287 lb), without ammunition.

Now there is your answer so don't ever dought my knowledge of German planes again!:lol:


www.wikipedia.com

CrankyBulletcup
10-06-2009, 12:00 AM
Just because it say moonknight82 that doesnt mean you guys cant responed

MorgothNL
10-06-2009, 12:12 AM
Just because it say moonknight82 that doesnt mean you guys cant responed

What do you want people to say? you 'attack' one guy, even mentioning him in your topic title. And after that, you state a fact from wikipedia.

Dont see anything to discuss, except the the way you choose to handle the 'error' of moonknight.

Not flaming you, Im just not quite sure what the tone of your post is towards moonknight.


off topic:
Ive posted this also in another topic but since you have the knowledge of german planes ;).
What armament would you say is better, the one of the standard 109 G-2 /F-4, or the spit IX?

Im having trouble killing enemies with just a burst from a 109. Even though I think the 109 armament should be more powerfull.

have you flown a lot of spit and 109 (not G-6 and K-4)? can you tell me if it is bad luck I dont get quick kills with the 109?

CrankyBulletcup
10-06-2009, 12:25 AM
BF109G-2

The rack and internal fuel lines for carrying a 300 L (80 US gal) drop-tank were widely used on G-2s, as were the underwing 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon gondolas. Several G-2s were fitted with the ETC 500 bomb rack, capable of carrying one 250 kg (550 lb) bomb. The final G-2 production batches built by Erla and Messerschmitt Regensburg were equipped as tropical aircraft (often referred to as G-2 trop), equipped with a sand-filter on the front of the supercharger intake and two small, teardrop-shaped metal brackets on the left side of the fuselage, below the cockpit sill. These were used as mounts for specially designed sun umbrellas (called Sonderwerkzeug or Special tool), which were used to shade the cockpit.

BF109F-4

The 1,350 PS (1,332 hp, 993 kW) DB 601E was used in the F-3 and F-4 model together with a VDM 9-12010 propeller with broader blades for improved altitude performance. The DB 601 E was initially restricted to 1,200 PS (1,184 hp, 883 kW) at 2,500 rpm; however, the full rating of 1,350 PS at 2,500 rpm was cleared for service use by February 1942. The DB 601 E was able to use 87 octane "B-4" aviation fuel, despite its increased performance; while the earlier DB 601N ran on 100 octane designated as "C-3" by the Luftwaffe.

Only 15 examples of the F-3 are believed to have been produced by Messerschmitt Regesnburg between October 1940 and January 1941. Like the F-1, the F-3 was armed with the 20 mm MG-FF/M and two 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17s.

From the F-4 onward, the new 20 mm Mauser MG 151/20 with 200 rounds was used as the motorkanone. The first F-4s reached frontline units in June 1941. Production lasted exactly a year between May 1941 and May 1942, with 1,841 of all F-4 variants produced. Some of the later models were capable of mounting two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons under the wing in faired gondolas with 135 rpg. These were designated F-4/R1 and 240 of them were produced by W.N.F. in the first quarter of 1942. This optional additional armament was standardized as field kit for later G and K series. A special high-altitude variant, the F-4/Z featuring GM-1 boost, was also built with a production run of 544 in the first quarter of 1942 and saw extensive use. Finally, the Erla factory produced 576 tropicalized F-4 trop in the first half of 1942.

With its initial engine rating of 1,200 PS, the maximum speed of the F-4 (and F-3) was 635 km/h (394 mph) at rated altitude; and with the clearance of the full rating of 1,350 PS, maximum speed increased to 670 km/h (420 mph).


Spitfire Mk IX

Mk IXs. Different wings, featuring a variety of weapons, were fitted to most marks; the A wing used eight .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns, the B wing had four .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns and two 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano cannon, and the C or Universal Wing could mount either four 20 mm (.79 in) cannon or two 20 mm (.79 in) and four .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns. As the war progressed, the C wing became more common. Another armament variation was the E wing which housed two 20 mm (.79 in) cannon and two .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning machine guns.

Minor note:

Due to a shortage of Brownings, which had been selected as the new standard rifle calibre machine gun for the RAF in 1934, early Spitfires were fitted with only four guns, with the other four fitted later. Early tests showed that while the guns worked perfectly on the ground and at low altitudes, they tended to freeze at high altitude, especially the outer wing guns. This was because the RAF's Brownings had been modified to fire from an open bolt; while this prevented overheating of the cordite used in British ammunition, it allowed cold air to flow through the barrel unhindered. Supermarine did not fix the problem until October 1938, adding hot air ducts from the rear of the wing mounted radiators to the guns, and bulkheads around the gunbays to trap the hot air in the wing. Red fabric patches were doped over the gun ports to protect the guns from cold, dirt and moisture until they were fired. Even if the eight Brownings worked perfectly, pilots soon discovered that they were not sufficient to destroy larger aircraft. Combat reports showed that an average of 4,500 rounds was needed to shoot down an enemy aircraft. In November 1938, tests against armoured and unarmoured targets had already indicated that the introduction of a weapon of at least 20 mm calibre was urgently needed.

In June 1939, a single Spitfire was fitted with a single drum-fed Hispano in each wing, an installation that required large blisters on the wing to cover the 60-round drum. The cannons suffered frequent stoppages, mostly because the guns were mounted on their sides to fit as much as possible of the magazine within the wing. In January 1940, PO George Proudman flew this prototype in combat, but the starboard gun stopped after firing a single round, while the port gun fired 30 rounds before seizing. If one cannon seized, the recoil of the other threw the aircraft off aim. Nevertheless, 30 more cannon-armed Spitfires were ordered for operational trials, and they were soon known as the Mk IB, to distinguish them from the Browning-armed Mk IA. In June 1940, they were delivered to No. 19 Squadron. The Hispanos, though, were still so unreliable that the squadron requested an exchange of its aircraft with the older, but Browning-armed, aircraft of an operational training unit. But in August, Supermarine had perfected a more reliable installation of the cannons with an improved feed mechanism and four .303 in outer wing panels. The modified fighters were then delivered to 19 Squadron.

CrankyBulletcup
10-06-2009, 12:30 AM
have you flown a lot of spit and 109 (not G-6 and K-4)? can you tell me if it is bad luck I dont get quick kills with the 109?

yes i have used all of the 109's and spits. My personal plane is the G-6 and the Spit Mk II and i really never cared for the G-2, G-10, F-4, and the K-4
cause the K-4 may have the speed but at the loss of handling. The problems that I had with the F-4,G-2, and G-10 was it was hard to see where you are shooting cause you are aiming three guns in the nose.
The spit MkII was just my fav over the MkIX and the MkXVI

MorgothNL
10-06-2009, 12:42 AM
whoef, lot of text :P

anyways, it doesnt really say wich armament is more powerfull. I found a table online stating that the 'standard' 109 with 2x 13mm and 1x20mm, pumps out more kilos of ammo per second, than the standard 4x7.7mm + 2x20mm spit armament.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-ta.html (note the G-6 variant without gunpods, and IX variant)
in game however, I keep on shooting and shooting with the G-2, F-4 or G-10, but the enemy doesnt go down. When I use the spit, I will down the enemy in 1/10th of the time it took me with the 109 (same accuracy).

I know the G-6 does not have this problem, it pumps lead like a gatlin gun, but it is slow, doesnt turn so nice, has a high recoil, and... to be honest... I think the guns are an overkill. I prefer to get a bit more performance, and trade it for firpower. Thus getting to the F-4/G-2, but then we get the strangely underpowerd armament.

Robotic Pope
10-06-2009, 12:46 AM
Huh? What kind of a thread is this? Your comments make you sound like a 6 year old. No one is gonna read all that, and copy and pasting doesn't count as knowledge. I had to do a search to find out what Moonknight wrote and could only find this:

The Dora 9 never had 5 cannons...where on earth did you get that from? It had two 20mm MG151 cannon in the wingroots and two 13mm MG131 machine guns in the top of the nose... If you want to see some real errors with the aircraft in the game, look at my previous posts. The Germans didn't add cannon under the wings of "most" of their planes at all...certain variants, yes...such as the Bf-109G-6....certainly NOT most. And these were marks...there were field mods, but these were the exception rather than the rule.


Nowhere does he say that the Me109's never had guns IN the wings. What he is saying is that MOST 109's didn't have wing mounted guns either detachable gondola's or internal. The some of the Early marks of 109's had weapons inside the wings (caesar and emil's) and the later 109K-6 had internal wing cannons. But the huge number of planes produced as 109F's G's and K-4's were never fitted with the Gondola Cannons as they could not dogfight other fighters with them fitted. As I wrote once before they were mostly used at night against bombers.

What Moonknight told you was correct, his English is a bit hard to understand though. I believe he meant to write "These were NOT marks, They were field mods" His meaning being that not all 109G-6's had gondola cannons. Only a small number of G-6's were fitted with them, and even those few planes had them removed when opposing fighters were expected on a mission.

Lastly Even if moonknight did make a mistake (He has before but not this time) you don't have to start a thread bitching to everybody about how he doesn't know anything, thats just plain rude. It is infact clear that he knows what he is talking about and like me but unlike you, doesn't have to use wikipedia for a brain.

CrankyBulletcup
10-06-2009, 12:53 AM
For one the Mk108 cannons had incedinary rounds that one would kill a single engine fighter and 4-5 would kill a bomber. The spit 20mm would hurt the 109 but not kill it right away.

baldwin8
10-06-2009, 01:02 AM
WOW!!!

I was not aware we had so many actual Second World War vets following and playing BOP!!!

Sounding like a Sunday afternoon at the Legion.

MorgothNL
10-06-2009, 01:05 AM
WOW!!!

I was not aware we had so many actual Second World War vets following and playing BOP!!!

Sounding like a Sunday afternoon at the Legion.

some painfull sarcasm there:eek:

baldwin8
10-06-2009, 01:07 AM
Only painful if we can't laugh at ourselves.