Author Topic: K-4 with cannon pods: some sources (Read 1520 times)

gatt · « **on:** November 25, 2005, 03:16:09 PM »

From "Bf 109 G/K, Field Conversion Kits (Rustsatze)", Harald Voght, 1998, Schiffer Publishing. Pag.55: Bf109K-4, Rustsatze IV: 2 wing gondolas each having an MG 151/20.

From: Bf109K-4, T. Poruba, A. Janda, 1997(?), JaPo Publishing. Pag.80: Rustsatze R4, two additional MG 151/20 (135rpg). Pag.23 (in Czech) Bf 109K-4/R6, diagram with wigpods mounted. Pag.36 (in Czech) Bf109K-4 armament, altenatively: 1xMG151-20 engine mounted.

Any other source to understand better the matter? Thanks for help.

milian · « **Reply #1 on:** November 25, 2005, 07:31:56 PM »

with the K-4 it's not so much a question of whether the cannon pods could be mounted, because both 20mm and 30mm could, the question is, that late in the war, did pilots really want them? Being outnumbered as they were, the pilots preferred the maneuverability over the firepower. Certainly without them they could outclimb the allied fighters, but was a fairly even climb rate with them.

1K3 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 25, 2005, 07:49:55 PM »

hey 109K-4 carried 500 Kg center rack bomb too:)

Grits · « **Reply #3 on:** November 25, 2005, 11:21:07 PM »

I can do without the gondies, but I'd like to have the 20mm spinner option back. I can hit watermelon throwin taters.

Meyer · « **Reply #4 on:** November 25, 2005, 11:53:20 PM »

No K-4 ever had MG151 as motorkanone.

Bruno · « **Reply #5 on:** November 26, 2005, 12:23:08 AM »

No one doubts that the K-4 had gondolas. Sources are already well established, a quick check of Caldwell's JG 26 is 'source' enough. However, pilots removed the gondolas. The K-4 wasn't hunting bombers and gondolas were detrimental to the pilots chances of survival.

I don't care anything about gondolas myself and I have no idea why HTC left them off as an option. Starting a new 'where's my gondolas thread' every couple of days may work to get them back, but some I how I doubt it.

ps...

Meyer is correct:

Quote

No K-4 ever had MG151 as motorkanone

Grits · « **Reply #6 on:** November 26, 2005, 12:28:36 AM »

I know the K-4 never had a 20mm spinner cannon, I just thought I'd mention I would like to have one since I cant hit anything with the 30mm.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #7 on:** November 26, 2005, 01:43:07 AM »

The K4 gondola option were removed for the same reason as Bf109G6 30mm option was removed, because HTC asked about 109 armament and a few people made lots of noise about the supposed rarity of these things - for example like the 1500 "rare" Bf109G6 with 30mm cannon....

1K3 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 26, 2005, 01:55:51 AM »

man the roll-eye effect is nerfed!

btw how about a compromise?

Dont give 109K-4 a gondola/rocket/bomb and 109G-6 an 30mm cannon

Give 109G-6 and G-14 200 round 20mm nose cannon option

Give 109F-4 center rack bomb (250 gk)

gatt · « **Reply #9 on:** November 26, 2005, 03:53:30 AM »

The reason that LW pilots removed gondolas from brand new K-4s is not a reason not to give us the chance to mount them.

Let me dig some other sources and I'll be back again. This double standard becomes to make me nervous.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #10 on:** November 26, 2005, 05:44:41 AM »

The 109K had definietely had the gondolas as option. I own the 109K-4 manual, it also lists the 20mm gondies as Rustsatz IV. Other Rustsatz include 21cm rocket launchers, bombs up to 500kg (as opposed to previous 250kg on 109g), droptank etc.

Wilbus · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2005, 05:45:47 AM »

Originally posted by HT in the "What happend to LW" Thread.

Quote

People who tend to do reaserch on flight data tend to cheary pick the data.

Not that I care about the gondolas what so ever, I never used them on the G10 nor would I ever use them on the K4 or any other 109. However, I feel the "cherry picking" of data sometimes goes both ways.

milian · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2005, 06:04:29 AM »

Kurfürst, would you happen to know anything about mounting bombs on the wings. Do you have any information on mounting the ETC 50 on the wings instead of the rockets like the FW 190 was able to?

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2005, 06:44:03 AM »

Never seen any bomb mounting on the 109 wings on any version. Droptank yes, it was produced in some numbers for long range Jabos of the 109G wielding 1x500kg on the centre + 2x300 liter DTs, or long range recce 109G-4 subtypes with 2x300liter underwing tanks.

So technically it could have been easily done (if each of the wings could carry 300 liter / ca250kg droptanks or 120kg gondalas) to carry 50kger bombs, why not, but it seems it was never done.

The answer is probably because they had something much better for soft targets, ie. the AB-250 (and AB-500) bomb dispensers, which would drop not 2-4 50kger, but as many as 96 smaller bomblets which covered a much larger area with lethal fragments than a few 50 kg bombs. There was also armor piercing HEAT bomblets instead of fragmentation.

I don't really play AH2, but I understand the AB bomb containers are missed completely, which is somewhat strange in view that the AB containers are the same thing as rocket launchers of the allied planes, ie. mid-war development instead of the usual free falling bombs. They should be included.

Wilbus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2005, 07:14:57 AM »

Lots of bomb armaments are missing from AH for all nations IMO.

I remember when the bouncing bombs were added in WB, damn how fun they were!