Author Topic: What happened to LW? (Read 20889 times)

gatt · « **Reply #555 on:** December 31, 2005, 03:28:18 AM »

I actually flew IN a double seater P-51D ("Miss Torque", Wanaka, NZ) and have more than 300 hours of cross country in MY light taildragger aircraft: I still think the AH2's 205/A-8/G-6/G-14 suck and the Pony-Jug fly on rails. So what?

(joking, but not too much)

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #556 on:** December 31, 2005, 05:20:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by batdog
Well..wasnt the airframe for the 109 designed back in the 20's? Dont remember. Yea..they did some modifactions, added power etc but its still the same basic design. They never radicaly departed from it due to the industrial needs and Hitlers folly.

What I'm saying is that you can only tweak an old design but so much.

BTW...I love the 109's but if a 47/51/38/spit etc is a "better" plane in game it would make sense in many ways.

Hmm, actually all of these planes you listed (51 exc?) were designed in the same timeframe, the second half of the 1930s. None of them were conceived after 1940.

One can argue the Bf 109 variants, excluding the E, were the latest of them all, since they got a major redesign of the Bf 109 with the F model, which had little in common with the previous models. It's development lasted between 1939, when most of the work was completed and 1940, when the final touches were implemented and it was put into production. The wing for example was completely new, and in that sense it evolved a lot more than any other design. As for never departed from it.. why fix something that ain't broke? Improvements otoh were continously added.this ensured that a good concept (with it's limitations coming from the original requirements) was very competitive up to the end of the war in the role it was designed for (interception/air superiority), and gained capabilities in other roles as well.

Angus · « **Reply #557 on:** December 31, 2005, 08:16:47 PM »

Well, there was the problem of arming the wing, just can't remember why.
Anyway, happy new year Kuffie, and you all!!!

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #558 on:** January 01, 2006, 08:39:45 AM »

Happy New Year to All !

@angus,

You mean the 109F's wing ? Galland could modded it even on the field to contain a pair of extra MG FF. I guess they didn't want to mess with holing the main spar. The basic armament was enough and effective, for extra firepower, they went with gondolas.

Now that I have some extra info on them, I can understand why they simply used gondies instead of putting them into the wing. Simple as that, it was equally good. The gondolas came with only 5-6 mph speed loss and 215 kg extra weight, including everything - guns, fitting and ammunition.

Now if I compare that with the PRO doc I have about the speed loss and extra weight due to installing 2 Hispanos into the C-wing on the Hispano... installing two cannons came with 6.25 mph speed loss, plus the bulges for canon fairing (two small ones : -0.5mph, single large one : 1.5mph). I guess the extra weight of 2 Hissos and 240 rounds for them is also comparable.

just to illustrate two different solutions with the same results..

HoHun · « **Reply #559 on:** January 01, 2006, 09:17:50 AM »

Hi Kurfürst,

>You mean the 109F's wing ? Galland could modded it even on the field to contain a pair of extra MG FF. I guess they didn't want to mess with holing the main spar.

I wonder how the Hispano installation in the CASA Messerschmitts looked in detail? Do you think they had to pierce the main spar for that installation?

>I guess the extra weight of 2 Hissos and 240 rounds for them is also comparable.

I get 159 kg for guns/ammunition/belting according to my comparison chart. Gun weight is from Tony, and I believe ammunition/belting was read off a Spitfire weight chart.

>215 kg extra weight

I get 135 kg for guns/ammunition/belting, so the rest must be atrributed to the mounting strcuture.

Compared to the 159 kg of the Spitfire/Hispano solution, the gondola weight penalty is 56 kg. Not nice, but probably not enough to justify the bad press it received over the past decades either ;-)

By the way, one reason not to introduce Galland's F-6/U solution was that MG FF/M production had been terminated in favour of MG151/20 production pretty early on. All the Schräge Musik installations in night fighters were made from stock-piled guns, of which there were plenty by night fighter standards. However, the demands of full-scale Me 109 production would have been much higher. (Thinking about it, how long did the Fw 190 continue to use the MG FF/M?)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Angus · « **Reply #560 on:** January 01, 2006, 09:28:20 AM »

Uhh:
"You mean the 109F's wing ? Galland could modded it even on the field to contain a pair of extra MG FF. I guess they didn't want to mess with holing the main spar. The basic armament was enough and effective, for extra firepower, they went with gondolas."

Well, Galland somehow wanted more firepower and saw the gondies as a penalty.
Haven't ploughed through his book yet, - maybe there is something about it in there.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #561 on:** January 01, 2006, 09:42:30 AM »

Hi HoHun!

"I wonder how the Hispano installation in the CASA Messerschmitts looked in detail? Do you think they had to pierce the main spar for that installation?"

I am not sure. I've seen schematics for MG151/20 installations on 109K projects, and as I recall they did not pierced the main spar, but put it well forward in the wing, protounding from the leading edge. The CASA 'schmitts with the Hispano cannon may have done the same, the cannon is well out of the leading edge :

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/Bf109.php

">I guess the extra weight of 2 Hissos and 240 rounds for them is also comparable.

I get 159 kg for guns/ammunition/belting according to my comparison chart. Gun weight is from Tony, and I believe ammunition/belting was read off a Spitfire weight chart.

>215 kg extra weight

I get 135 kg for guns/ammunition/belting, so the rest must be atrributed to the mounting strcuture.

Compared to the 159 kg of the Spitfire/Hispano solution, the gondola weight penalty is 56 kg. Not nice, but probably not enough to justify the bad press it received over the past decades either ;-)

I just looked up the actual weight from the two-cannon SpitIXc loading chart : http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ab197wl.gif

2 x Hispanos = 294 lbs
240 rounds of ammo = 150 lbs
Total : 444bs weight = 201 kg

So actually the two Hispanos in the C-wing or two Mausers in underwing gondolas weight pretty much the same with ammo (note though, it's 240 vs 270 rounds) - 201 kg vs. 215 kg.

Drag is also pretty much the same, ca 7 mph for the Hispanos, 5mph for the gondies, but the former refers to rated altitude, the latter to SL, so on equal footing I guess they are virtually identical.

I wonder why people sceptical about what the press tells them...

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #562 on:** January 01, 2006, 09:45:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Well, Galland somehow wanted more firepower and saw the gondies as a penalty.
Haven't ploughed through his book yet, - maybe there is something about it in there.

Galland's modded 109 was a 109F-2, Werkn. 6750. This one only had the MG 151/15 in the nose as basic armament, not the MG 151/20 cannon of the later models. In view of this his decision was understandable, the 15mm mauser simply wasn't enough - that's why they changed in with the F-4 and later to 20mm version.

Angus · « **Reply #563 on:** January 01, 2006, 06:08:09 PM »

A nose pack ( 3 guns) and 2 guns in the wings yes?

As well as Micky Mouse, hehe

MANDO · « **Reply #564 on:** January 02, 2006, 12:26:37 PM »

HA1112 was a jabo plane, not a fighter.