Author Topic: 190 MGs (Read 816 times)

fats · « **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2000, 05:49:00 AM »

Juzz,

Quote me a sources which state that removal of cowl MGs was rare. Doesn't matter really though as long as we have F4u-1C flying which kinda nullifies the rare argument.

//fats

funked · « **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2000, 07:12:00 AM »

One thing to consider - Fw 190A cowl guns are a bit forward of the CG. Removing them and their ammo would cause an aft CG shift. Considering that Fw had to make several mods to the aircraft to move the CG forward, removing the guns may not have been feasible on all variants.

Pongo · « **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2000, 11:06:00 AM »

I dont know about rare. It was certainly common in conjunction with the 30mm outer guns. It is critical to be able to choose to shoot the mg151 and the mk108 seperatly. They dont fly the same at all and hitting with the 108 is much more difficult if the 20s are flying with it. So I want to be able to select to fire the cannons seperatly, dont really care about the mgs. Cant believe it will make that much more difference.
But, if funked is right and cg is an issue. The magazines for the inboard 151s are right bellow the cowl mgs. So just give us equivilent weight in 20mm rounds....

nother topic.
Funked do you know why the 108s where not carried inboard??? where they not syncronizable? Would seem to me to make more sence to remove outer wing guns, cowl guns and replace the iner guns with 108s. You could have like 200rpg that way and the whole thing would probebly weigh less then the 4X20mm a8..
course thats alot of ammo in the fuselage.

Jigster · « **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2000, 11:33:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo:
I dont know about rare. It was certainly common in conjunction with the 30mm outer guns. It is critical to be able to choose to shoot the mg151 and the mk108 seperatly. They dont fly the same at all and hitting with the 108 is much more difficult if the 20s are flying with it. So I want to be able to select to fire the cannons seperatly, dont really care about the mgs. Cant believe it will make that much more difference.
But, if funked is right and cg is an issue. The magazines for the inboard 151s are right bellow the cowl mgs. So just give us equivilent weight in 20mm rounds....

nother topic.
Funked do you know why the 108s where not carried inboard??? where they not syncronizable? Would seem to me to make more sence to remove outer wing guns, cowl guns and replace the iner guns with 108s. You could have like 200rpg that way and the whole thing would probebly weigh less then the 4X20mm a8..
course thats alot of ammo in the fuselage.

I doubt the 108's reciever could fit between the chord of the wing and the start of the gear bay. Also I think the bulk heads only had fittings for the 151 barrels.

- Jig

Pongo · « **Reply #19 on:** July 23, 2000, 12:00:00 PM »

Its behind the main spar well behind the gear bay. Maybe the ammo would not fit in front of the firewall but behind the spar..

juzz · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2000, 06:26:00 PM »

"where they not syncronizable?" - I'd say thats part of it. The MK 108 is pnuematically operated iirc, the MG 151 is electric.

funked · « **Reply #21 on:** July 26, 2000, 03:27:00 AM »

Juzz, even if you are wrong about the pneumatic/electric operation (I have no idea), the synchronization is the key. It is a lot less of an engineering hassle to add a gun in a position which does not require synchronization.