Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 63tb on July 28, 2004, 12:22:34 PM
-
Folks,
Why did the 109 (and others?) have inverted V engines? Is there an advantage to that configuration? Did any allied plane use that configuration?
Also why didn't the early model 109s have a center mounted gun? The spinners look like they were made to accept them.
63tb
-
Originally posted by 63tb
Folks,
Why did the 109 (and others?) have inverted V engines? Is there an advantage to that configuration? Did any allied plane use that configuration?
[/b]
Depending on how the reduction gearing is setup it should give a lower thrust line, allowing better view over the nose. Having the skinny part of the engine up top and the wide part down low also helps out with view to the front.
Also why didn't the early model 109s have a center mounted gun? The spinners look like they were made to accept them.
63tb
I don't think any engines it used prior to the DB 601 were designed to allow it.
Greg Shaw
-
There were several American-made inverted-vee engines during the war years but none of them were really mass-produced.
The Ranger engine was inverted, as was the trouble-prone Continental.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by 63tb
Also why didn't the early model 109s have a center mounted gun? The spinners look like they were made to accept them.
They did early on with the 109B, but the gun jammed badly so they changed to wing mounted with the 109C.
-
They tried for almost every 109 version to allow a gun to shoot through the hub. Early guns had vibration problems, were in and of themselves unreliable, not to mention on top of that jamming because of engine vibration. It wasn't until the -F that a reliable cannon was made and a reliable way of mounting it was established.
-
Was it always a cannon they tried mounting thru the hub or did they try MGs too?
63tb
-
They tried mounting Mg17 7.92mm in the engines. The Bf109B intended to mount 3 MG17 - 2 over and 1 in the engine.
-
It had the same problems of the cannon attempts. There was one short-run production where there were 5 MGs, 2 in cowl, 2 in wings, 1 in engine firing through the hub, but it was quickly changed to just 2 in cowling and 2 in wings.
-
Why was the engine mount so tough? The barrel is the only part that goes through the engine, right? Why would the main part of the gun have a tougher time in the body of the plane than in the wing? There's more G forces and flexing in a wing mount.
63tb
-
Inadequate gun cooling and vibration were some of the main issues.
-
inverted vee also allows the cowling guns firing through the prop.
-
You could do that anyways. It all just depended on the layout. For example the A-36 Apache had 2x 50cal firing out below the engine (it had a V, not an inverted V). I wouldn't say that having an inverted V allowed that, as you could do it anyway. It was just a matter of how things were designed.
-
wasnt the hole in early 109's spinner an oil cooler or something?
-
Originally posted by Furball
wasnt the hole in early 109's spinner an oil cooler or something?
No, but I have read that the hole was left for general cooling purposes even after theyt gave up on the engine mounted gun. But this hole was closed up on many 109E4 and IIRC all E7 spinners so I'm not sure it had any purpose at all. As for oil coolers, up tp the 109E they had the oil cooler in a small fairing under the wing. The 109E moved it to under the engine after the main radiator was moved from the nose to the wings.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No, but I have read that the hole was left for general cooling purposes even after theyt gave up on the engine mounted gun. But this hole was closed up on many 109E4 and IIRC all E7 spinners so I'm not sure it had any purpose at all. As for oil coolers, up tp the 109E they had the oil cooler in a small fairing under the wing. The 109E moved it to under the engine after the main radiator was moved from the nose to the wings.
Thanks! i got told by someone that works on wwii aircraft that it was a oil cooler.. i think he said oil cooler anyway.
Will see if i can stick my camera down the hole with flash and take a picture :D
109G
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1091214005_gunbarrel.jpg)
-
Lower trustline also means the engine profile will be more symmetrical. Since a/c fusalages are usually wider at the bottom than on the top. if you have the engine wide parts down, too, you can more easily do a symmetrical, pointy nose. If you look at the nose sections, it`s quite striking that inverted-Vee engined planes have a pointy, bulletlike nose, whereas the normal Vee engines always have one kind of a ship-bow, curving upwards, which is more disturbing to the airflow.
-
Why was the engine mount so tough?
The engine mounts on the 109 were tough BUT they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks. Later on additional oil tanks where added as the DB605 was adopted.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The engine mounts on the 109 were tough BUT they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks. Later on additional oil tanks where added as the DB605 was adopted.
Crumpp
Photo of a 109 engine mount of a Bf 109E-1
(http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/4034/4034.jagan-2.jpg)
from http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/4034/4034.htm
A drawing on pg 75 of the Radinger/Schick Bf109A-E book shows 'tube' (pipe) engine mounts.
A pic on pg 205 in the Prien/Rodieke 109 book of a G-6 shows 'channel' (flat plate with perpendicularl supprt webs as in the pic above) engine mounts.
-
Check out the left side mount Milo.
Crumpp
-
It's a hydraulic fluid not engine oil and it actually fits in between the triangular spaces. Those engine mounts were constructed of "electron", a magnesium alloy that was lighter than aluminum.
Reading the authors description it is inside the engine mount as he states. It is not "INSIDE" the engine mount. Seeing a picture of the left side mount it is clear.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's a hydraulic fluid not engine oil and it actually fits in between the triangular spaces. Those engine mounts were constructed of "electron", a magnesium alloy that was lighter than aluminum.
Reading the authors description it is inside the engine mount as he states. It is not "INSIDE" the engine mount. Seeing a picture of the left side mount it is clear.
Crumpp
:rolleyes:
That is an add-on aluminium tank. It is NOT part of the engine mount(bearer) structure. There is another tank below the front mounting point of the starboard and port side for coolant. The oil tank was mounted behind the spinner backing plate, around the gear reduction casing. One can see that the small tank bolted to the exterior of the port engine mount and fits into the triangular opening of a 109E on pg 96 of the Radinger/Schick Bf109A-E book. The engine mount does not double as an oil tank (your original words) but as a mounting place for the 'oil' tank.
To refresh your memory:
Originally posted by Crumpp
The engine mounts on the 109 were tough BUT they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks. Later on additional oil tanks where added as the DB605 was adopted.
Notice that the 109E mentioned, above used a DB601 engine. The mount is the same as in the pic posted earlier. NO doubling as an oil tank, which you claimed.
The A to D models used tube engine mounts(bearers). How would they double as oil tanks?
Where were these additional oil tanks added on later 109s?
-
That is an add-on aluminium tank. It is NOT part of the engine mount(bearer) structure.
That is EXACTLY what I said Milo in:
It's a hydraulic fluid not engine oil and it actually fits in between the triangular spaces.
Maybe I was not clear enough on that. Maybe I was not clear on the fact the text in the book is " The oil tank in the engine bearers" but the picture clearly shows a seperate tank bolted to the bearer that fit in the triangular space.
Thanks for clarifying it!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is EXACTLY what I said Milo in:
Maybe I was not clear enough on that. Maybe I was not clear on the fact the text in the book is " The oil tank in the engine bearers" but the picture clearly shows a seperate tank bolted to the bearer that fit in the triangular space.
Thanks for clarifying it!
Crumpp
No problem:) but find a better German to English translator.
Definately you were not very 'clear' with your erronious statement that:
"they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks[/i]",
ie. TOTALLY false statement.
Hydaulic oil is a more refined oil than lubricating oil but still an oil.
-
Hey milo,
The text was english. I can find a better translator. Too bad you can't find a better personality.
:eek:
Crumpp
-
Whatever crummp, it compliments yours.:) If I had made such a bogus statement ("they doubled as oil tanks") I would have been man enough to say 'oops, sorry I am wrong. Here is a better description'. The operative words being 'oops' and 'wrong'
Now where were these additional 'oil' tanks added in 109s with DB605 engines.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The engine mounts on the 109 were tough BUT they were so large because they doubled as oil tanks. Later on additional oil tanks where added as the DB605 was adopted.
Here is a pic of BF109G, W.Nr 610937
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/001-100/walk037_Me-109_G-10/part2/images_Randy_Smith/09-Bf109G_610937_Evergreen_RDS0009.JPG)
and a G-10
(http://www.geocities.com/s822014/109/151951/31.jpg)
-
Least I admit when I am wrong, Milo. I can't count the number the times you have been wrong and just slink off without a word.
Crumpp
-
Come on guys....
Anyway, nice pics.