Looking for definative proof....

[MiloMorai]

..... that the MG151/15 and the MK103 were used, or not used, in the Me109K-4.

[Squire]

Geez, I recall this has been debated to death already, with a "no" to both. Has it not?

[CPW]

not definative proof but some resources...

MK103
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4127&page=5

MG151/15 size
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?p=24352

Compare with the cowl of Bf 109 from Kurfurst site...
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Engine/DB60x/files/Motor_DB605D.jpg

The MG151/15's barrel would be almost hit the propeller...

[MiloMorai]

Geez, I recall this has been debated to death already, with a "no" to both. Has it not?

Most likely.

The reason I am asking is there is this numb nuts on another board that despite graphic proof showing a MG151/15 in the cowl position still insists that his coffee table books are a respectable and reliable reference sources.

He is so far out to lunch, to show the percentage weight increase for the 109 (109B to 109K-4) and the Spit (MkI to Mk24), he uses the clean weight for the 109K-4 and the maximum overload weight for the Spit 24.

[Squire]

Ah, roger. Funny how some debates just wont die. 

[Anaxogoras]

These errors were started by William Green in Warplanes of the Third Reich, and were copied by many other works.

[MiloMorai]

These errors were started by William Green in Warplanes of the Third Reich, and were copied by many other works.

I told him that but he can't believe that other authors, and even the Inet, would say the same without checking.

Actually Anaxogoros, it started with Green in his 'Famous Fighters of WW2', first published in 1957.