PDA

View Full Version : question for 109 drivers



p1ngu666
01-08-2004, 01:30 PM
just wondering, when they wanted more firepower on the 109 later in the war, why they use those gondola guns that made it awful handling, why didnt they stick on a emil wing with the cannons in already?
or a similer layout but with the later type of wing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
just wondering cos then ud have 3x 20mm, or 1x30mm and 2 20mm, or with slightly larger bulges 3 30mm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
just curious and im not trolling :P
thanku http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
01-08-2004, 01:30 PM
just wondering, when they wanted more firepower on the 109 later in the war, why they use those gondola guns that made it awful handling, why didnt they stick on a emil wing with the cannons in already?
or a similer layout but with the later type of wing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
just wondering cos then ud have 3x 20mm, or 1x30mm and 2 20mm, or with slightly larger bulges 3 30mm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
just curious and im not trolling :P
thanku http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

horseback
01-08-2004, 02:24 PM
I believe it had something to do with weight-that and the ability to change wing armament. The gondolas were not the only thing slung under the wings in F/G/K models. They also used those rocket tube launchers for breaking up bomber formations.

Installing the guns in the wings would have made adding extra armament under them much more difficult, and may possibly have affected the structural strength of the wing. Certainly, the FW-190, with it's mid-wing mounted cannon, was vulnerable in that area.

That said, Adolph Galland did have one of his early 109Fs modified to have MG/FF cannon in the wings, as in the Emil. The other Freiderich had two 13mm MGs mounted over the cowl instead of the std 7.9mm. The breeches of the heavier guns had teardrop shaped fairings over them, unlike the less aerodynamic bulges of the G-6.

Galland never did care for the light armament of the late model 109s, but not even the General of the Fighters could get this changed. I guess Willi had more pull.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Agamemnon22
01-08-2004, 02:31 PM
The problem with the 109's wings is space. The wing is very thin, so even if you manage to cram a gun in there, good luck finding room for ammo. The Emil got 20mm Oerlikon FF cannons in the wings, which was heavily modified to reduce weight and size. A result of the modification was poor muzzle velocity, so the Emils suffered somewhat during BoB. As the war rolled on, Oerlikon FF's became hard to come by, so their use was discontinued. Eventually glitches with the engine-mounted Mk108 were sort of worked out, so they concentrated on that and let the wing be. They had enough problems with that wing.

I just read what I wrote and that explains nothing. lol.

I guess the logic behind using gunpods was such:
1) your guns fire outside the propeller arc, which tends to mean the gun can fire quicker. This is good.
2) for fighters attacking the bomber formations coming from England it made sense to put the most lead on target in the shortest time interval possible. As internal wing guns were a problem (blasted wing!), they did the next best thing.
3) the gunpods are optional as I understand, if you think you're going to be turning lots, u can get them removed. If you prefer BnZ though, they're a godsend.

NegativeGee
01-08-2004, 03:56 PM
Internal wing armement on the 109 series was generally a matter of modification on the original design. The 109 was not required to have wing mounted guns when conceived (the weapon fit requested by the RLM was two cowl mounted machine guns) and Messerschmitt's design exploited this in having very thin wings whose only function needed to be was aerodynamic, without provison for internal weaponry.

It soon became clear that more weapons were required for a modern fighter, so this posed a problem for the chaps at Bfw. Because the 109 was such a compact design the only alternate weapon mounts were the centreline (engine) mount. After this, it was a case of modifying the original wing to accept one machine gun each (as first appeared in the C series). Further wing reinforcement and redesign eventually lead to the installation of the MG/FF cannon, but the fact it was drum fed lead to the prominent characteristic bulge on the underside of the Emils wing.

With the introduction of the Friedrich, with its redesigned wing, internal wing mounted cannon could not be accommodated due to even less space been available. Hence the development of underslung cannon gondolas in various shapes and forms.

The 109 is interesting in that it had a very limited internal weapon space available and how its enginners made the most of its weapon mounts as the airplane evolved.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

[This message was edited by NegativeGee on Thu January 08 2004 at 05:35 PM.]

p1ngu666
01-09-2004, 05:38 AM
ah right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
thankshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F19_Ob
01-09-2004, 06:04 AM
the big gondola guns were mainly used against bombers and they were also kits adapted to fighters already in the field.( conversion was fast) the later 30mm pods were more streamlined.