PDA

View Full Version : mk103 for nose on 109k



Jumoschwanz
11-18-2004, 09:28 PM
Lots of books say the 109k had the m103 as an option for the motorcannon installation. A much more powerful and higher velocity round than the mk108. Let us just put it on the wish list for some future patch ok? I think it would be fun to play with. S!

Jumoschwanz

MaxMhz
11-18-2004, 09:39 PM
Geez the Tiger of the skies lol

I'd like to have one of 'em BIG guns (ya know those of the battleships) mounted under my plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Backward...

WTE_Galway
11-18-2004, 10:40 PM
without actually looking it up ... i very much doubt it the mk108 barely fitted and the rear of the mk108 comes right through into the cockpit and the mk103 was a much bigger weapon. In fact the mk108 was simply a lighter cheaper pressed metal variant of the mk103.

i may be wrong though .. would be interested to see some historical data

perhaps some of the LW experts could fill us in


http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgAAAD0XO4Z3BKw19!arygqA5dMWLcwm4J7gALgcRNNV!o!rv oZ53hcr1hlEz!KpE2Z2bcHyR8ZLStEZ*5JT2EgwRFrZuxrIJkz 8Fmm24omev1ALK9ap5g/aircraftrounds.jpg

Fennec_P
11-19-2004, 02:08 AM
Oleg sez:

Where did you read a 109G made with a MK103? Close that book and don't open anymore!

But seriously, this has been discussed before. Though the armament was planned for later variants in the K series, it was never actually produced. Definitely not for a G model.

In the K-6, K-8 and K-14, the armament saw some changes. The K-6 like the K-8 was planned to carry two MG 131 above its engine, one MK 108 in each wing and a MK103 behind its propeller hub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

KaRaYa-X
11-19-2004, 06:47 AM
The "Bf109 equipped with Mk103" is an urban-myth!

It neither was possible to mount it as a motor-cannon nor in the wings - a strenghtening of the construction would have been needed for that (wing-installation) and concerning it's use as a "Nabenkanone"; it is far too bulky and heavy for that - there wouldn't be enough room for it between the engine blocks!

Furthermore keep in mind that the Mk103 is a LOT heavier than it's small brother the Mk108. The 108 weights in at around 60kg for the cannon itself where it is about 141 for the Mk108! That would have resulted in a quite observable loss of performance... Only BIG fighters such as the Do335, very rarely the Fw190A and some night-fighters like the "Uhu" had the 103.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

However it IS true that a special version of the M103 - the Mk103/M - was developed for use as "Nabenkanone" on the Bf109. The intention was to get a relatively light and small high-calibre cannon with the brilliant ballistics of the Mk103. However it never went into serial-production because of the war's end...

NegativeGee
11-19-2004, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
without actually looking it up ... i very much doubt it the mk108 barely fitted and the rear of the mk108 comes right through into the cockpit and the mk103 was a much bigger weapon. In fact the mk108 was simply a lighter cheaper pressed metal variant of the mk103. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MK-108 was not a variant of the MK-103, both were quite different weapons designed for specific purposes (low velocity high ex/incendary cannon and high velocity cannon respectively).

KaRaYa-X is correct on the MK-103 and the 109- there was a light weight version being developed but it never saw use.

KaRaYa-X
11-19-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
without actually looking it up ... i very much doubt it the mk108 barely fitted and the rear of the mk108 comes right through into the cockpit and the mk103 was a much bigger weapon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but most of what you wrote is wrong. First of all it isn't that "phenomenal" that the end of the Mk108 was visible in the Bf109s cockpit... ever taken a MG151/20 equipped bird into the air --> look right between your legs - anything interesting!? Yea, you'll see the MG151/20 rear end too...

And, no the Mk108 is not bulky - it's amazingly small for it's calibre... have a look:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/mk108-s.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In fact the mk108 was simply a lighter cheaper pressed metal variant of the mk103. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, no the Mk108 is neither a derivative nor a smaller version of the Mk103. These two guns have NOTHING and really nothing in common (they do not even fire the same ammunition!). However you are right with your assumption that it is smaller, lighter, cheaper and made out of pressed metal (which is the reason WHY it is cheaper)

p1ngu666
11-19-2004, 07:38 AM
thought the shell, bit that goes and hits plane was same, mk108 has more proplent or whatever to make it go faster

Jumoschwanz
11-19-2004, 09:09 AM
Sorry guys, my memory was off. It was the 109K that had the mk103 according to some books. I looked at two books real quick, German Warplanes of WWII by Chris Chant, And Warplanes of the Luftwaffe by David Donald, and they both say the K model could be had with the mk103 in the nose. Anyone have anymore actual documentation for or against this? Documentation not including "urban myths" or anything else that is not on paper. S!

Jumoschwanz

NegativeGee
11-19-2004, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Sorry guys, my memory was off. It was the 109K that had the mk103 according to some books. I looked at two books real quick, German Warplanes of WWII by Chris Chant, And Warplanes of the Luftwaffe by David Donald, and they both say the K model could be had with the mk103 in the nose. Anyone have anymore actual documentation for or against this? Documentation not including "urban myths" or anything else that is not on paper. S!

Jumoschwanz <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I'm going to correct myself a bit as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I've got the same book, and Donald makes the common error of quoting the armament of the K-4 as consisting of 2 cowl mounted MG-151/15 and the option of a MK-103 in the motorcannon mount.

The Luftwaffe Album (Joachim Dressel and Manfred Griehl) quote the K-4 internal weapons as 2 cowl mounted MG-131 and a MK-108 as the motorcannon. They also say that in the "closing months of the war" a few K-8 recon versions were delivered with the MK-103/M gun fitted.

So there were a few made..... I wonder if they were ever operationally flown?

KaRaYa-X
11-19-2004, 09:54 AM
I also own the book "German Warplanes of WWII" by Chris Chant (in german of course) - and it is so full of mistakes, especially in respect to the Bf109 that I wouldn't even dare ever listing it on my list of sources.

Example --> the author states the following:
The Bf109G was equipped with the DB605 which had GM1 injection standardized(!!)...
Uhm, that's just FUBAR! This system was NO WAY standard equipment for the Bf109G - actually it was just the opposite; a very very rare sight and there's a pretty good reason for it.

GM1 is a form of injection similar to MW50 with the difference that instead of methanol-water it uses nitrous-oxide... it is only effective at altitudes of 6500m and above - otherwise you'll roast your engine for good! So at low altitude it only creates dead weight (and a hell of a lot too). The full GM1 mixture itself already weights in at about 150kg and you can add some more 20-30kg for the rest of the systems.

The author states 3100kg take-off weight for a fully equipped Bf109G1/2 with GM1 - which is again totally wrong. 3200kg and above is more realistic when keeping in mind that a REAL, REPRESENTATIVE plane had a takeoff weight of roughly 3000kg

The author also says that the Bf109G10 is the fastest version of the plane - although he mentions the K variant he doesn't seem to realize that the K4 is quite a bit faster than the G10 (~30km/h)

Finally Chant's statements about the Mk103 are quite amuzing tough

Jumoschwanz
11-19-2004, 10:03 AM
So all I see is hearsay trying to discredit my sources instead of quoting any new ones. Not much use. How about some documetation boys? I know I can come up with more for my point and as I do I will post it here, as well as anything contrary. I don't want to argue I am looking for facts becuase I like these planes. S!

Jumoschwanz

NegativeGee
11-19-2004, 10:09 AM
A misunderstanding Jumoschwanz http://4forums.com/political/images/smilies/xhoho.gif

Jumoschwanz
11-19-2004, 10:19 AM
Gee,

if your post has documetation, which it does then i certainly am not talking about you right? Logical........

Tks for the valuable info. Now I know there has to be much more out there. This sim has lots of krap that was prototype or borderline in it's existence, so I just thought why not the mk103 motorcannon? it was certainly more substantial and real than lot's of things in this sim that are supposed to be late war, right?

S!

Jumoschwanz

KaRaYa-X
11-19-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
So all I see is hearsay trying to discredit my sources instead of quoting any new ones. Not much use. How about some documetation boys? I know I can come up with more for my point and as I do I will post it here, as well as anything contrary. I don't want to argue I am looking for facts becuase I like these planes. S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for hurting your feelings, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif but that's just what I think about it. And I did give sources actually - read the FULL message...

And yes I am a dedicated Bf109 pilot and fan and as such I don't want any fantasy-book variants or versions with only half-credible equpiment/armament.

PS: How much can you trust a book that states 2x15mm MG151 and 1xMk103 as armament for the K4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

butch2k
11-19-2004, 01:38 PM
jeezzz one of my favorite subject, the MK103 ugly head appearing once again.

Short answer : no it was never fitted on the 109.

Long answer : the weapon was so large that it was not possible to mount it within the 109 airframe. Indeed the gun mantle was quite large being larger than the blast tube over a long length. Hence mounting of this weapon would have required a change in barrel design and as such a change in the whole weapon design.
This was done, or more precisely it was about to be done when war ended. THe MK103M and the associated mounts had been in developement for a long time, but as war ended the MK103M was still not finished yet.
The K-4 weapons were MG131s and a single MK108, the K-6 for which wing sets had been produced were to be equipped with additional MK108 in the wings. Everything else is wishful thinking and paper design only.

Jumoschwanz
11-19-2004, 02:14 PM
Anyone ever read anything about the mk103 as a field mod? I am sure the factory manuals for the Hurri and P40 Don't have it that russian engines were installed in them. But it is very well documented that one ace had a 109F with 20mm cannon installed INSIDE the wings and not on gunpods, ala the 109e model.

It looks like the mk103 mystery will always be a toss up. But there are a lot of planes and features in this sim that do not have any more credibility, so why not put it in just for the fun of it is what I was thinking. I agree that there are many more important things for coders to spend thier time on, but if anyone ever came up with any good documentation it would be cool to have it put in the loadout for a 109. Thanks all for your time. I will keep my mouth shut now unless I find something credible on this someday in the future. S!

Jumoschwanz

butch2k
11-19-2004, 02:25 PM
You'll find absolutly nothing about it... except for design documents on the MK103M and the associated mounts and post war interview of its engineers.

Yes Galland had his a/c so modified by Erla for use of 20mm in the wings but it was a one of. The a/c survived for sometime in various units btw.

Jumoschwanz
11-19-2004, 02:37 PM
I want the "Galland field mod 109f" in the sim too then. : )

Kurfurst__
11-20-2004, 05:51 AM
Oh ****, so many myths repeated, but all were debunked before I got there. Looks like this community really had improved its common knowladge base, grat gentlemen.

As for the MK 103mot, AFAIK it was only meant for the projected subtypes K-8 and K-10, the former being a recce, the latter appears to me to be the same as the K-4, just with the 103 cannon instead of the 108. The rest had MK 108 in the nose, and certinly I have seen nothing that would show they would have been produced. The K-6 was close to that, was tested, the reported K-14s some has seen were probably K-4s produced with a new version of the 605D, equipped with two stage supercharger, ie. a quasi K-14 w/o wing guns.

Atomic_Marten
11-20-2004, 06:06 AM
Mk103? Excellent weapon.. but I'll stick with Mk108. On Me109, that is. That is IMO, enough for bombers and little ones.

BTW I have never heard of Mk103s on Me109..