PDA

View Full Version : MK103 for BF109k4?



dazza9806482
02-08-2005, 06:41 AM
Hi guys

I was reading Uwe Feist's 'The fighting ME 109', it has a nice section on the variants and I was interested to read that the majority of K4's were equipped with the MK103.

I dont think this is selectable in FB, and its certainly not at the top of my list for patch additions, but it would be pretty cool, especially as excepting the GO 229 the K4 would be the sole plane on dogfight servers to possess this cannon...

dazza9806482
02-08-2005, 06:41 AM
Hi guys

I was reading Uwe Feist's 'The fighting ME 109', it has a nice section on the variants and I was interested to read that the majority of K4's were equipped with the MK103.

I dont think this is selectable in FB, and its certainly not at the top of my list for patch additions, but it would be pretty cool, especially as excepting the GO 229 the K4 would be the sole plane on dogfight servers to possess this cannon...

JG53Frankyboy
02-08-2005, 07:00 AM
IF , at all, there were MK103M (M for modificated, was shorter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )equipted 109Ks , there were most propably only test planes.
and yes , i know, we have a lot of "test"-planes already in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

EFG_beber
02-08-2005, 07:17 AM
+1
We have enough uber late war plane.

JG53Frankyboy
02-08-2005, 07:24 AM
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/mk103.html

RasMichael
02-08-2005, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dazza9806482:
especially as excepting the GO 229 the K4 would be the sole plane on dogfight servers to possess this cannon... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I seem to remember that the FW-190/A9 has MK103 pods as selectable loadout....

Atomic_Marten
02-08-2005, 08:05 AM
Even if we get Mk103 version, I doubt that ver. would be preferable one, considering Mk108 ROF vs Mk103 ROF.

Mk108 is simply the most devastating and effective gun for fighter in this game.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
02-08-2005, 08:15 AM
Mk103 would be a nice sniper gun though and very destructive at longer range

dazza9806482
02-08-2005, 09:11 AM
I didnt realise that the mk103 k4 was a different version. I thought it would just be an ammo loadout selection like FW.

Yes Michael u are right, FW does have 103 selectable. Does kind of sully the aerodynamic purity though, I meant it would be interesting to have a fighter with an MK103 built in as nose cannon.

anyhow, no-one likes a smart **** http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I prefer early war scenarios with historically accurate planes anyway. uber planes dont really bother me, i dont get my knickers in a knot about them...

Kurfurst__
02-08-2005, 09:41 AM
To my best knowladge the MK 103mot was not fitted to K-4s; there is no primary source indication of that so far, it`s more like a repeated error in the literature. All K-4s were to have the MK 108 in the nose. Note that German designation system meant that if the armament (or airframe or radio equipment) would change, it would also mean a different designation.

Some projected K variants were bound to mount the cannon, ie. K-8 fighter recce and the K-10. The K-10 appears to be the same as the K-4, except for the MK 103 mot cannon. But it did not go into production.

OTOH it would be interesting - and unlikely - to have it added, the MK 103 would mean a very very accurate - ballistics were terrific -, and devastating weapon mounted on the 109, ideal for high deflection shots or engaging bombers out of their gun`s range. The ROF isn`t that much lower, 420/min vs. 600, I think this is still very much acceptable for air combat (think of the MG FF`s ROF, for example). There would be some cost in manouveribilty and climb for it, given the 103 was some 100 kg heavier, but I dont think this would be very noticable, the 109 enough reserves in this respect to bear it.

p1ngu666
02-08-2005, 10:11 AM
kurfy, why did they fit mk103 to the recon varient? just seems a odd choice to me.

raf and americans normaly removed all guns, armour and other not needed bits, to improve speed and climb, far better to not be intercepted that to fight was the idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
02-08-2005, 12:50 PM
Have no idea. Perhaps the MK 103 was seen as long-term solution, replacing the MK 108 in later models. K-8 was to be a fighter recce, and previous FR 109s kept some of their guns, too. Just like FR Spits.

The other thing I can think of is to keep the plane multi purpose for various operations, and MAYBE because the MK 103 with tungsten cored ammo was a very decent armor piercing weapon - with up to 100mm penetration...

p1ngu666
02-08-2005, 01:10 PM
yeah thats true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

id bet we would get lots of photo recon fighter jocks if they could have p51 with 4 hispano's, and 109 with mk103

doubt there was much room left in the cockpit of the 109 tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

RasMichael
02-08-2005, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>anyhow, no-one likes a smart **** http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They call me Mr. Knowitall.
I sup the aged wine.
Oh I could tell such wonderous tales
if I should find the time.

Kurfurst__
02-08-2005, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
doubt there was much room left in the cockpit of the 109 tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You imply that the firing bolt of a 30mm cannon punching your testacles with 150 000 Joule at 420/min rate isn`t a good idea...?

jagdmailer
02-08-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
doubt there was much room left in the cockpit of the 109 tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You imply that the firing bolt of a 30mm cannon punching your testacles with 150 000 Joule at 420/min rate isn`t a good idea...? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Jagd

KGr.HH-Sunburst
02-08-2005, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
doubt there was much room left in the cockpit of the 109 tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You imply that the firing bolt of a 30mm cannon punching your testacles with 150 000 Joule at 420/min rate isn`t a good idea...? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Abbuzze
02-08-2005, 03:42 PM
I real doubt that it was possible to build in a MK103 in the 109 "nose" keep in mind the 103 was a smaller version of the old PAK37 (a 37mm antitank groundcannon!) while the 108 was a supersize MGFF (20mm known from the Emil wingsguns)

p1ngu666
02-08-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
doubt there was much room left in the cockpit of the 109 tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You imply that the firing bolt of a 30mm cannon punching your testacles with 150 000 Joule at 420/min rate isn`t a good idea...? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sig worthy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

i never wanted kids anyways http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Badsight.
02-08-2005, 10:15 PM
Mk-103 = best large cannon in FB for A2A

i lub it

JG52MadAdler
02-09-2005, 11:09 AM
FYI
The Fw-190A9 has a MK103M wing package.

JG52Uther
02-09-2005, 12:20 PM
I personally have a particular fondness for the MK103 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fehler
02-10-2005, 02:04 AM
From what I understand, the MK103 was never used on a Bf109 because it simply would not fit into the inverted "V" of the 12 cyl engine.

Many books quote that the 103 was used, but this was simply impossible.

I am sure of the Germans could have put one in the nose of a 109 or in the wings of a 190 they would have. That cannon packed one heck of a punch!

I believe there were plans, however to have it incorporated into the Ta design, but I dont think this came to fruit either, although my literature on the Tank is quite limited.

Kurfurst__
02-10-2005, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
From what I understand, the MK103 was never used on a Bf109 because it simply would not fit into the inverted "V" of the 12 cyl engine.

Many books quote that the 103 was used, but this was simply impossible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was possible, Fehler. Otherwise I dont get why would the Germans produce quite a few drawings showing a big-S 30 cannon in the 109s nose, clearly not the MK 108. The problem was that the original barrel of the MK 103 was too thick at a point to fit into the blast tube fitted between the Vee cylinder banks of the 109 (btw, think of yaks mounting evem a 45mm cannon there...). The weapon was thus slightly modified with a sleeker barrel, this was MK 103m or mot (motor, engine), that would fit into the blast tube, almost the same thing as the MK 103.

As for how much room it would it take from the cocpit, I doubt there would be much different (no room, the stick was right there), consider that even with the MG 151 or MK 108 it was only the back of the gun with the recoil elements being there - the chamber of the gun was fed slightly ahead of the cocpit : ammo magazines and belts for the cannon were just below the MG 131 guns for the MK 108.

WTE_Galway
02-10-2005, 10:44 PM
As far as I know both the Mk103 and Mk108 were developments of the earlier (much bigger) MK101.

The MK103 was high-velocity and weighed 146kg the MK108 was low-velocity and much lighter (only 64kg) and cheaper (because it used many stamped parts). In addition the Mk108 had a much smaller round.

According to warbird resources website:

"There was also a MK103M version for mounting on the engine, i.e. firing through the propeller hub. This had a different design for the gas duct (the standard gas duct did not fit in the tube running between the cylinder banks of German V-12 engines) and no muzzle brake (same reason). The MK103M seems to have been less reliable than the standard version.

The MK103 was installed in a few Fw 190 ground-attack aircraft (wings), in an experimental Me 262 (nose), the prototypes for the Ta 152C-3 (engine), in some Do 335s (engine and wings), and possibly in a handful of Bf 109K fighters (engine)."


http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgACA0wXtId3BKw19!arygqA5dMWLcwm4J7gALgcRNNV!o!rv oZ53oXRGxGTddbA856O5uXrGH2GoEryR4MdiTvtFUoHa6enz1x IghYtOCJWoqBKnsmMeQ/aircraftrounds.jpg

Fehler
02-11-2005, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
From what I understand, the MK103 was never used on a Bf109 because it simply would not fit into the inverted "V" of the 12 cyl engine.

Many books quote that the 103 was used, but this was simply impossible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was possible, Fehler. Otherwise I dont get why would the Germans produce quite a few drawings showing a big-S 30 cannon in the 109s nose, clearly not the MK 108. The problem was that the original barrel of the MK 103 was too thick at a point to fit into the blast tube fitted between the Vee cylinder banks of the 109 (btw, think of yaks mounting evem a 45mm cannon there...). The weapon was thus slightly modified with a sleeker barrel, this was MK 103m or mot (motor, engine), that would fit into the blast tube, almost the same thing as the MK 103.

As for how much room it would it take from the cocpit, I doubt there would be much different (no room, the stick was right there), consider that even with the MG 151 or MK 108 it was only the back of the gun with the recoil elements being there - the chamber of the gun was fed slightly ahead of the cocpit : ammo magazines and belts for the cannon were just below the MG 131 guns for the MK 108. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes, now that you say that, I recall similar information. The Mk103(M). It has been a long time since I read that, and I dont even recall what book it was in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif (Age creeping up on me I guess)

But actually, we dont have that weapon in the game, or do we? If you happen to have any info you could post on the weapon, ie. is the MV the same as the standard MK103? ROF, etc? If the gas return and buffering mechanism was different, I bet the ROF would be different as well.

Also, do you happen to have any production numbers of a 103 equipped 109K? Man, that would be a nasty plane to fly! Punch of a 30mm with the range of a good heavy MG! Talk about sniper with attitude! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hetzer_II
02-11-2005, 02:19 PM
another question about 109 k4:

was it equieped with 2*mg131 or 2*mg151/15?