Why the asymmetrical loadout on the Bf110G?

[Imowface]

IIRC the reason for the stagering was to make room for the loading mechanisms

[Krusty]

That's not the question, though. 

(it was just an interesting note, is all)

[Imowface]

ah, my mistake

[EagleDNY]

I think the difference in space is negligible. I imagine, based on exit chutes, that the right gun is reversed so that both feed from the center and eject to the outside.

Krusty - I think we have it backwards and the guns feed from the outside and eject to the middle and straight down out the bottom of the nose.  There is a good picture of a 110C at the RAF museum where you can see the bottom of the nose and the arrangement for the 20mm cannons is just the reverse - the port side cannon is further forward than the starboard (you can tell by looking further back along the nose and you can see the staggered ejection ports with the left one being further forward than the right).  If you look at the 20mm ammo load outs, I think it shows the point again as the port cannon gets the 300 rounds and the starboard 350. 

This makes more sense from a design standpoint as well - all they have to do is leave a gap between guns large enough for the brass to dump straight down and out, and that same gap works for brass for guns mounted at the top and bottom halves of the nose as long as they stagger the mounts.  The ammo cans for each gun are pretty much form fitted to the nose and just of a slightly different size.  I think that being good Germans they just loaded as much ammo as possible into each can, and that the cans themselves didn't waste a mm of available space. 

[Tupac]

Is it because of the right turning tendencys of the airplane? Having 2 big propellers turning the same direction could make the airplane quite unstable at slow speed. It would make sense that the ones on the left would have more ammo, to even it out.

I know I am most likely 100% wrong, but I am offering a *possible* reason

[Krusty]

Eagle: I don't think that's the case. I've built a fairly decent model of it. The ejection chutes were outboard. Also, the ammo canisters are undeniably directly below the guns in line with the breech of each gun. The canisters are wide enough to span the width of the nose if I recall. That precludes any ejection chutes because they would theoretically travel directly through the ammo canisters to eject below the nose.


Also, the 20mm guns had the barrel blast tubes there, it would probably get in the way?


EDIT: Yup:

Museum bird here (note the outboard ejection chutes):

[EagleDNY]

OK - I think you must be right on the 30mms then - they have to eject outboard.  Those ports are outboard, and are definitely staggered.  Is that a cable coming out of the starboard port?  Something for the radar perhaps (as the is a G4)?

But take a look at this underside photo of a 110C4 - if you look back along the underside of the nose there are two staggered rectangular openings just forward of the belly tray area that look to me like the ejection ports for the mg151s.  I wish I had a view of this area open, because it looks like the ammo cans for the 20mms would have to load above the guns.  The MG151s are very close together - I wonder if they can be mounted sideways so that the ammo belt comes in from the top of the gun and the brass just drops straight down and out?

[Iron_Cross]

The answer may be simply another way to tell the pilot that he's about to run out of ammo.  "Only one tater fired I guess I am about out."

[Krusty]

Eagle, near as I can tell those are gas ports. The guns sit back so the shell ejection would be through slots in the bomb rack. The drums were changed by the tail gunner, if you recall.

Actually just did a search and found this:



That seems to say they are gas exhaust. My German's rusty but I can make that out.

[Lusche]

On this picture we can read the labels ""Leergurt- und Hülsenraum" = "Empy belt and (spent) catridge space" and "Handlochdeckel für Hülsenraumentleerung" = "Hatch for emptying the cartridge space". Which means they are not being ejected but collected and teken from the plane after the sortie.

[Krusty]

I was wondering about that. I couldn't make out the terms, but that little protruding centerline structure made me think of 109Es and how they captured the spent shells.

That doesn't seem to be the norm, does it? I've never seen it before, and there are a number of photos showing this is not present, such as this:



And:



Wouldn't the shells just eject straight out in these cases?

It's hard to find a good photo of the area without the bomb rack.

[Krusty]

This might show one of the 2 staggered shell ejection ports:



at the very bottom there.

[Lusche]

This might show one of the 2 staggered shell ejection ports:

These are labeled "Gasableitungen der MG/FF" on the drawing you posted: "gas exhaust" (for the MG/FF)

[Krusty]

Behind them, halfway cut off at the bottom of the photo. That looks like it is about the right spot (theoretically) for a shell ejection chute.