109E3 cannons or spud guns

[drewpee]

The wings on the BF109 were to thin to house more than one gun, it's also the reason the landing gear opened towards the fuselage,hinged at the wing root, no room. As the power output of AC increased so did the weight and fire power. After sorting out the bugs later model 109's had the cannons firing through the nose thus loosing inboard wing guns.
In the Pacific Theater there was little need for the Americans to use larger slower firing rounds as Japanese planes had little to no armor and no self sealing fuel tanks. Fast firing rifle and incendiary rounds in sort bursts was enough to light up Jap AC's.

[TomcatViP]

IMHO the absence of wing guns was to better the rolling inertia (decreased). The motor-canon was not ready at early stage of the war. Hence the assisted starter trough spinner was mounted instead.

@Kongo-Otto who said " Realy? And your sources are?" speaking about 109 with wing's canons belt fed mechanism : you can buy a copy of "Le fana de l'aviation" issued 3 or 4 month ago.

Have a good read

[Kongo-Otto]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

IMHO the absence of wing guns was to better the rolling inertia (decreased). The motor-canon was not ready at early stage of the war. Hence the assisted starter trough spinner was mounted instead.

@Kongo-Otto who said " Realy? And your sources are?" speaking about 109 with wing's canons belt fed mechanism : you can buy a copy of "Le fana de l'aviation" issued 3 or 4 month ago.

Have a good read

Sorry "Really? And your sources are?" was not meant as an insult or personal attack.
I have heard about experiments about an electrical belt feed MG/FF but, afaik that was for Nightfighters and wasn't issued to the Geschwaders.
But in an regular issue BF 109 i've never heard about it.

Pleas get me a link for an order of that book, you woke my interest.

[TomcatViP]

I am packing away but will unfold the box with that particular issue inside. Although I will appreciate any french reader giving the info.

~S!

[TomcatViP]

Thickness ratio was 14.2 but due to the narrow chord it makes the wing thinner.

As a comparison , the Fw190 had a a 15% such as many WWII planes (the NACA 23015 airfoil was very popular at the time)

The spit had a 12% but with a wider chord that makes more room available in the wing.

By the way, 6x12.7 mm with a high rate of fire such as those mounted outside the propeller disc is not something I 'd hve call a "riffle"

If you look at the amount of un-friendly material in term of mass that is thrown in your way you'd reconsider the idea of poor US artillery.

Yes the canon is the outstanding killer (I just went to see a vid of what seems a 37mm or a 40mm direct hit on what look like a Fw190 by a VVS aircraft... Baaaouum !) but it's not the ultimate hitter by far.

~S!