Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: udet on November 05, 2002, 07:33:53 PM
-
Can we have the Me109 K-4? Even as a perk plane. It makes an excellen medium altitude fighter. 1 30mm cannon and 2 15mm cannons. Need to say more? It wouldn't be a new plane,just another version.
-
The 109K-4 did not have 15mm guns in the nose. It had regular old 13mm guns just like our G-10. Also, our G-10 is a K-4 in all but name.
Only difference I've heard might exist is the K-4 has some kind of tabs on the ailerons to make them work better at high speed, not sure if those are on our G-10.
-
G-10 is basically a K-4............there wasn't much diffrence
-
If we DID get a K-4, I'd hope we got one of the early models with the 426 MPH speed--this would fill a hole in the ME-109 planeset of AH.
J_A_B
-
The K-4 did have 30mm in the nose and 2 15mm cannons. Later versions got even more armamnet. It was capable of 727km/h at 6000m. Too lazy to convert now.
-
Why is AH in mph? Whenever I fly I got no clue how fast I'm going. I don't think German and Russian planes had mph gauges.
And didn't the K-4 have some insane climb rate?
-
The K4 did NOT have MG151 15mm cannon above the engine. No way! They had MG131 13mm MG just like every other Bf109 at the time.
The ailerons had flettner automatic assist tabs which helped deflect the control surfaces at high speeds, this would aleviate some of the Bf109s high speed roll difficulties which were largely attributed to high pilot stick forces.
There was no "early" 426mph K4, the 426mph figure is that of a G10 without using MW50.
-
Our Bf109G-10 is a hypothetical G-10 equipped with an engine that would bring out the best possible performance for 109s of these series - bringing it up on par with the K-4.
Therefore, to tell you the truth, our G-10 is a sort of a "what if" plane. There's no evidence of any sort to back up the existence of a Bf109G-10 performing as it does in AH.
If Allied fans would complain "it's unrealistic", the Luftwaffe fans really can't say much, because it is... ;) Therefore, with maybe the exception of little better roll rates and climb, if a K-4 is introduced, it would perform identical to the G-10.
My suggestion is, remodel the G-10 into a K-4, and give us a G-14 to fill the gap between the early G-6 and the K-4(formerly G-10).
-
There certainly were Bf109G10 with DB605DCM engines, the exact same engine as in the K4. The G10 was a real mutt and had all sorts of engines from older DB605AS to the current production type DB605DCM. The idea was to rebuild older G series airframes and combat repaired examples bringing them up as close to possible to the K4 standard. Depending on what engine they used it was possible for it to have lower performannce to nearly identical K4 performance. Our just happends to have the K4 engine so has nearly identical K4 performance, at least in speed. So there our G10 is fully representative of the types in service, there is absolutely nothing hypothetical about it. It's very easy to spot a G10 with the DB605D engine because it would have chin bulges on the underside of the cowl.
-
"There was no "early" 426mph K4, the 426mph figure is that of a G10 without using MW50."
Well technically there were "early" and "late" model 109K's as both "A" and "D" series DB605's were used at various times during the production run. You are correct though that the use of MW50 was probably a larger factor than the engine model although the exact engine model would also play a role. Regardless of what caused the different levels of performance, I'm sure you'd agree that we have little need for a fighter with the SAME performance of the 109 we already have.....something to plug the gap would be better.
And don't you wish you had a nickel for every time somebody brought up the 15mm gun thing?
J_A_B
-
Not to diecredit you Grun, but I think the fastest G-10 record I've seen was about 430mph, simular to the P-51D. Is there any official record on the speed of G-10 with the DCM engine?? :confused:
-
Salute
Actually I believe the real K4 would be quite a bit faster at S.L. than the G10 we have here.
Around 375mph
Speeds up high would be around the same.
Most common G10 did 428mph up high, around 365mph down low. Ours does 452mph up high like K4 did.
-
The 426mph figure is G10 without MW50.
Since every DB605D engined G10 had MW50 according to Prien/Rodieke we must assume the 426mph figure is for a G10 with a DB605AS.
DB605D G10s are gonna be as nearly as fast as a K4.. :D
If we want a 430mph class Bf109 for a summer 1944 scenario we should ask for a G6/AS or G14/AS. These had the same engine as the G10/AS and would prolly do the 426mph figure and might weigh a bit less to boot helping manuverability. :)
-
S!
According to IL-2 developer the Bf109K-4 was very much of different construction than any G-series. Structure was modified both externally and internally. I would like to see K-4 in AH since it would be better rolling than the G-series we have now because of the Flettner tabs. Bring on K-4!:D
-
Its not all that radically different IIRC but a bunch of stuff was changed and many components fully relocated to different parts of the airframe, for example the radio, compass and oxygen bottles all come to mind.
-
Does our G10 have the "Galland Hood"? I know some G10's had it, and the G14. It was standard on the K-series.
-
Our G-6 and G-10 have the "Erla Hood", which was 'standard' on G-6 and later I believe. I think it was on some earlier ones, but it wasn't considered standard until the G-6.
-
Every G10 had the Erla haube, so did every G6/AS and G14/AS. The first Erla haube appeared on G6s in late43/early44. Galland panzer appeared sometime earlier in 43 and was initally used on the older framed canopy. Erla haube was not ever really considered standard on any regular (non-AS) G6, even the regular G14 sometimes had the older canopy.
BTW
Erla Haube = the actual clear vision canopy
Galland Panzer = bulletproof glass head/back armor
-
cosmetic changes: Raised Cowling Line
Lengthened Spinner
Galland style Canopy
Control surface changes: Enlarged Tail assembly
fully retractable tail wheel
Modified Rudder
Armament changes : 30mm Mk-108 or 103
15mm Mg 151
Power Planet changes: DB605B initially then went to the
DB605 ASC or DB605 DC engines that
rated 2,000 HP and had the GM-1 boost
Only until the K-6 was brought into service did they switch back to the original 13mm cowling guns. The K-6 also had an additional mounting of two Mk-103 30mm guns mounted in the wings. That brings gun load to 3x30mm and 2x13mm....gee can we say bomber destroyer? ;)
This information was brought to you by the letter 2 and the number Z.....
-
All the books I have on the 109 say the K series had 2 13mm MG131s, just like the G series. I don't even think there was room in the nose for 2 Mg151/15s, I could be wrong though.
-
The Bf109K-4 never (let me strongly ephasize the word "never") carried MG151/15s. That was an author's mistake that has propagated out into a horde of other books. If you look in any modern book that uses primary sources for data you will see that none of them mention the 15mm guns in the cowling.
Only trust books based on primary sources.
-
MG151/15 cowl guns are just a wet dream I'm afraid. The K6 did however have three MK108's as OntosMk1 said, but I would like the K4 with all the loadout options available, and increased high-speed handling.
-
...from what i've read the Karl-4 used the DB 605D which had an enlarged supercharger and so did not need GM-1 and was not fitted w/ it. it did have MW-50
-
Until the K6 was brought into service?!?!?!?!??! By service you mean the 3 prototypes that were completed? right. Cause that is all the K6's that were ever made.
And NO 109 had the Mk103 cannon. period.
Jeez. Grunherz and Karnak gave it to you guys straight. The rest is just 109 devotee's wet dreams.
-
Yep guys K4 never had MG151 15mm cannon or MK103 cannon, please stop spreading this false information.
Every K4 had 2x13mm MG131 and and MK108 30mm.
Some Bf109 test mules might have had a Mk103. I strongly emphasize might because late in the war they did finally manage to redesign a new Mk103 barrel which would fit inside the DB605 driveshaft and I have no idea if any test examples were built, but they were trying to. But thats clearly just an academic point and in reality no Bf109 had Mk103 in service or combat or ever for any practical use.
Verm I wasnt even aware there were 3 K6 built, all I ever see are just the wood wings lying around and photos of the new Mk108 fairings. :)
I did read that one K14 was built and issued to a combat unit, this would have an interesting plane - DB605L and a four bladed prop, I bet it would have had dramatically improved climb and speed especially at higher alts.
-
IF there would be enough room for MG151/15.... Why would anyone use MG151/15 when you could shove MG151/20 to same space?
-
Balistics. For example the Do335 had a high velocity MK103 30mm and two MG151 15mm, the 15mm has a much higher muzzle velocity than the 20mm so it maches up better.
-
Yeah I checked their numbers, MG151/15 57g projectile 960metrs/sec... pretty impressive numbers when compared to M2 .50cal.
-
Yep. The US came pretty close to dumping the Browning 50cal and adopting a near direct copy of the MG151 in .60cal (15.24mm), going so far as to build up huge ammo reserves for the new gun.
-
Grunherz, to be honest I don't think any were built either. But I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt in this case, because a very few sources quote a few finished aircraft. :)
-
me-109 nr. 5 ??
Noway u guys got enough 109's !!!
There only one plane really forgotten and we don't want it faster(dweebier).
Get us a new lightning
-
We have in AH:
Bf109E4
Bf109F4
Bf109G2
Bf109G6
Bf109G10
So K4 would be #6 you ignorant bastige... :D
-
S!
Personally I think we need a G6 with DB605AM engine more than we need the K4. Would fill the gap between the early G6 we have, and the G10.
This was the aircraft which was used during 'Big Week' and most of the big battles with the USAAF between October '43 and March '44.
-
Yes I think that too. We could just add MW50 to our current G6 and then add an earlier version with the older canopy.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
me-109 nr. 5 ??
Noway u guys got enough 109's !!!
There only one plane really forgotten and we don't want it faster(dweebier).
Get us a new lightning
To this day the 109 is the most produced fighter ever. It deserves more models to better show the diversity of this A/C.
-
Gentelmen, "never" is a word that shouldnt be used unless your %100 sure that your right. Let me blind you with the light of truth..... ;)
The source: The Great Book of World War Two Airplanes
Authors: Jeffery L. Ethel, Robert Grinsell, Roger Freeman, David A. Anderson, Fredrick A. Johnsen, Alex Vanags-Baginskis, and Robert C. Mikesh.
from Bonanza Books
The Messerschmitt Bf-109 section is done by Author: Robert Grinsell.
His list acknowledgements are:
Gerhard Barkhorn
Wilhelm Batz
Adolf Galland :eek:
Gunther Rall :eek:
Erich Hartmann :eek:
Dietrich HraBak
Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, G.m.b.H
The Royal Air Force
United States Air Force
and list goes on and on.....
Now for the information....
Bare with me here it might be a bit lengthy...
The intial production batch of K-series aircraft to be delivered consisted of both the Bf-109K-2 and the Bf-109K-4 model. Powered by either the DB 605 ASC or DB 605 DC engines rated at 2,000 hp and incorporating the GM-1 boost system, the K-2 and K-4 modifications noted for the pre-production aircraft and standardized on the 30mm NOSE CANNON IN COMBINATION WITH A PAIR OF 15mm MG 151 MACHINE-GUNS.:D The only difference in the two models was in the installation of a pressurized cockpit into the K-4 model.
With deliveries of the Bf 109K-2 and K-4 beginning in October, 1944, Messerschmitt undertook a further refinement of the basic K-series airframe to be used as a high-altitude bomber-interceptor. The designationassigned to this aircraft wsa the Bf-109K-6. THE AIRCRAFT WAS SIMILAR TO THE K-4, BUT REVERTED BACK TO THE 13mm MG 131 FUSELAGE MOUNTED MACHINE-GUNS AND WAS FITTED WITH A OAIR OF 30MM MK-108 CANNONS IN THE WINGS FOR ADDED FIREPOWER.
So, in hind sight, if the 109K-6 was similar to the K-4 but REVERTED back to the 13mm cowel guns. That would mean that the Me-109K-4 was armed with a Mk-108 or 103 30mm cannon and TWO 15mm MG151 mounted in the nose cowelings......;) :p :D
-
To this day the 109 is the most produced fighter ever. It deserves more models to better show the diversity of this A/C.
so what u think the lightning was ?
only 1 model ?
-
Let's put this myth to rest once for all....
(http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/bf109/bf109k-manual-page-title.jpg)
(http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/bf109/bf109k-manual-page-30.jpg)
And don't trust this book too much, it relied too much on Green and nowarra's works to be reliable.
-
We need more versions of 190 such like 190A-2, 190A-6 and 190A-9.
-
Ontos!!!
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Do you want to see pictures of the K protoype for gods sake? There were no 15mm MG151 on any Bf109K none, none. Frankly I am gettting sick of this incessent stupidity that always keeps bring up this MG151 15mm BS. I dont know how this garbage got started or why it continues but it's simply false!
-
so your telling me both Adolf Galland, Eric Hartmann, and the Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm company are wrong?
show me these, pics please....for i have several very good resources that say that the 109k-0 and 109K-4 where equiped with 15mm cowel guns along with 30mm cannon.
-
Ok I'll get those pics scanned as soon as possible, I dont have a scanner so I will make trip down to Kinko's later tonite or in the morning.
In the meantime...
Show me any direct qoute of Adolf Galland where he says K4 has 15mm MG151.
Show me any direct quote of Erich Hartmann where says K4 had 15mm MG151.
Show me any postwar MBB or wartime Messerschmitt AG techincal manual or design drawing featuring 15mm MG151 in the upper cowl of a K4, any K series or any Bf109 for that matter.
Certainly you must have have most dramatic evidence to back your claims, mind you claims that have been debunked by all serious modern LW researchers for several decades now.
The 15mm MG151 in K4 myth is perhaps only outdone by the idiotic late war Panzergrau reappearence myth that pops up every so often...
So go, show me your dramatic evidence from your "several very good resources"....
-
"Certainly you must have have more dramatic evidence to back your claims"
Heh heh. He saw it in a book, it MUST be true!
J_A_B
-
Didn't people trace back this problem to Mr. William Greene, where this whole thing started and then spread out from his mistake to all the other people's who used his work as reference?
-
I have spend a good lot of time in the past years squinting my eyes of barely readable microfilms, searching various archives, for my book on the 109, and not once i saw a reference to 15mm MG151 being mounted on the 109K cowling.
For once it could absolutly not fit there, just check the length of the weapon and compares it to the MG131, i hope you realize that the MG151/15 is nearly two meters long.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
so what u think the lightning was ?
only 1 model ?
I never said that. I want more models of all important A/C in AH (including the P38!), but I would like the 109 line extended even further. I don't expect HTC to make it a priority seeing we have 5 109's already, nor do I expect a new Lightning. I think HTC should consentrate on the Soviet planeset now, and after that the Japanese. BUT I WANT MY K4! ... eventually.
-
Man, if thought yall we're going to wig out I wouldve never replied to the thread.
The Books that im getting my info from are Janes Book of World War 2 Aircraft, Fighting Aircraft of the Luftwaffe, and The Great Book of World War 2 Aircraft. All of them say that the 109k-0 and K-4 were equpied with the MG 151s. To say that they were NEVER installed in the 109 airframe is simply ludicrous. How many of you have flown the Bf-109 series or helped design the A/C?
So we'll settle this once and for all.....The Bf-109K-4 didnt use the MG 151 or the Mk 108 guns. So sit back have yourself a little party and dont forget to pat yourself on the back.
Also if the source that im reading from is a very reputable one and said source compares to others then why shouldnt I beleive it? Oh wait I know why....its becasue i dont know anything right?
See ya in the air gents....
-
There is no way an MG151 could fit in the cowl of a Bf109. For gods sake. Take a look at this diagram of the armament of a Bf109. The engine cannon is a MG151/20 with identical dimensions to 15mm type, the cowl guns are MG131 13mm. Do you think that two MG151 would fit in the cowl above the engine?
BTW this is from an actual WW2 LW issued Bf109 pilots handbook, plese produce one featuring two MG151 in the cowl...
-
It's a fact that K4 did not have MG151 in the cowl, deal with it!
However, and after your last bizzare post I dont even know why I should bother, I ask you what it will take from me or from the BBS in general to convince you of that fact?
-
LOL! Grunherz
You remind me so much of myself. When I started this many many many years ago, I was a HUGE German aircraft fan, and I still am, but just not on the boards.
Threads like this, and rabid "wonder wobble" fantics who insist on MG151/15's in 109K's, and "switchable" gun circuits 190s, and Mk103 30mm's in everything, just turned me totally off.
Give it a year or two, and I'll bet you'll even be changing your name ! ;)
-
I try to help.. :D
-
How about this-
The 109 k-4 or whatever model it is can have the fantasy twin 15mm and the spitfire IX can have it's fantasy 6 hispanos.:D
I wish my scanner was working, i would have scanned a photo of it. 6 hispanos....... anyone else got a pic of it?
-
I just love it when my posts spark controversy. My source was a book about WW2 aircraft by 2 Italian guys, I'm sure most of you have seen it at Barnes and Noble. I bought it 2 years ago, I think a new edition is out now, I wonder whether it has different info on the K-4.
-
Ok, then answer me this please. Where did this false information come from and why is it still being used?
Instead of beating me over the head with "Facts". How about educating me on why everyone thinks that the "early" K seried had MG 151s in them. I apologize if I offend anyone. I didnt expect all the Arrogant responces. I think one person mentioned something about an author printing false information on the 109 series but thats all I heard about it......:D
-
While doing my research i came upon a drawing showing the gun arrangement of the K-4. The print i got was barely readable when it came to the cowl mounted MGs and the 3 of the MG-131 could be read as either a 3 or a 5. So i'm quite sure that this document is the basis for all the misconception of the k-4 using MG-131.
And btw the drawing shows clearly MG-131s but not MG-151.
I'll try to find that document within my archives, but i think it was also published in some early 109 works.
-
Hi Ontos,
>Instead of beating me over the head with "Facts". How about educating me on why everyone thinks that the "early" K seried had MG 151s in them.
I guess this is a misconception stemming from the re-introduction of wing cannon that was planned for the Me 109K series.
There are drawings with the designation Me 109K-6 or K-8 which have MG151 wing guns. These were of 20 mm calibre, but in 1944 the 15 mm variant wasn't used any more, so the shorter designation was understood by everyone.
For example, there was a drawing dated 23.6.1944 labeled "BF 109 K8 1 Motor MK103 2 Flügel MK151". If you don't know German, you might think this was a Me 109 with an engine MK103 and two cowl MK151, but "Flügel" means "wing" so it's clear these were no cowl guns. (And as stated above, they weren't 15 mm either.)
Though it was planned to fit the Me 109K with wing guns from 1943 on and the Me 109K-6 with internal cannon was to replace the /R6 kits with underwing cannon, no series production of these aircraft actually took place.
The only series-production Messerschmitts after the Emil to feature internal wing guns were the Spanish variants, powered by Merlins and armed with Hispanos :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
AFAIK this MG 151 cowl gun stories started when William Green wrote something about them. While I respect his works (well, some of them :) ), this appears to be a legend or missundertanding; so far no one has come out with verifyable evidence. IIRC Green was somekind of intelligence officer during war and after war he just happened to be in right place at right time when Air Ministry started to dump out unnecessary intelligence material. He collected van loads of material and this helped a lot when he started to write.
gripen
-
did any plane ever have synchronized MG151 15 or 20?
its my understanding that those weapons didn't lend themselves to synchronization
-
The FW-190's inboard cannons, which fire through the prop arc, are 151/20's
J_A_B
-
S!
FW190A and D-series had synchronized inboard MG151/20. They were electrically fired and synced, hence the marking MG151/20E...
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
"switchable" gun circuits 190s
What do you mean?
-
He means the debate on the 190A-8 armed with 30mms.
Some FW190 pilots state they had three firing circuits, first for the MG131s, second for MG151/20 and the third for MK108.
This debate happened really long ago, and the rest of the details are fuzzy to me. (However, I seem to remember neither of the both sides proved anything... just controversial evidence laid out by both sides.. anyhow, it was an interesting debate.)
-
Hi GScholz,
>What do you mean?
May I introduce myself? I'm Vermillions's "rabid 'wonder wobble' fantic who insists on "switchable" gun circuits 190s. "
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47955&highlight=incomplete+undocumented+origin
On the other hand, I'm not even remotely related to Vermillion's "rabid 'wonder wobble' fantic who insists on MG151/15's in 109K's".
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54210&highlight=Interesting+opinion
You never know whether we "rabid 'wonder wobble' fantics" use facts or myth when we strike, but it's always a good idea to insult us preemptively so that we keep down our heads.
Works every time ;-)
Regards,
Henning
(rabid 'wonder wobble' fantics association, facts faction)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi GScholz,
>What do you mean?
May I introduce myself? I'm Vermillions's "rabid 'wonder wobble' fantic who insists on "switchable" gun circuits 190s. "
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47955&highlight=incomplete+undocumented+origin
On the other hand, I'm not even remotely related to Vermillion's "rabid 'wonder wobble' fantic who insists on MG151/15's in 109K's".
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54210&highlight=Interesting+opinion
You never know whether we "rabid 'wonder wobble' fantics" use facts or myth when we strike, but it's always a good idea to insult us preemptively so that we keep down our heads.
Works every time ;-)
Regards,
Henning
(rabid 'wonder wobble' fantics association, facts faction)
LOL! :D
Actually I do belive that the 190´s with 30mm 108's and 20mm 151's did have some sort of selector. I recollect an interview with an old LW pilot on the Discovery channel who said he opened up with his 20mm's, and when he got closer (to the bomber) he switched to 30mm's. Would make sense given the difference in ballistics of the two weapons. The quad 151 armed 190's probably didn't have this feature. Dosn't really make much difference to me though, scince I prefer the quad 151 armament option. Plenty of firepower and better ballistics.
-
Hi Gscholz,
>I recollect an interview with an old LW pilot on the Discovery channel who said he opened up with his 20mm's, and when he got closer (to the bomber) he switched to 30mm's.
Yes, it's exactly that kind of comment that started the discussion. Vermillion's comment has renewed my interest in this topic, and I've turned to Butch for help (who is the real expert in these matters). Butch thinks I might be wrong, but so far, he couldn't say that for certain either :-)
What I learned is that in the Fw 190A-3, "switchable guns circuits" were a reality, though it seems the system was revised before the introduction of the A-8. S,o their existence is still open for that plane and, more importantly, its R2 and R8 variants.
I really love these discussions - no matter what the final outcome might be, there's always something to learn from them! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hohun,
I asked my parents to send me some data i have at my old place (actually theirs), i hope they'll manage to find but it may take a few since it has been packed with toejamload of other documents for quite a long time. I really hope i'll be able to move to smthg larger and get back all my books from my parents.
So expect an answer soon ;) (i hope...)
-
Hohun, have you seen the section of the A8 manual regarding this issue that I've posted in the past? Its quite explicit on the issue.
If you haven't seen it, I might be able to find it again, or scan it in.
-
Here it is Fw190A8 Armament Operation Panel (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-gun-circuit.jpg)
-
as we established earlier. In the 190a8. the pilot could select to fire the mgs and the inner cannons or the outer cannons or all three. That makes more sence then what we have in AH. Which pairs the 20mm and 30mm together and wastes one. The ballistics of the 13mm and the 20mm are way closer then the 20mm and the 30mm.
-
i could see want to fire only the inner pair of MG151/20 if the target was outside convergence distance, or not in the same plane (geometric use of the word) and inside convergence distance, but its not even almost a big deal
-
It probably is a big deal for those who prefer the 151/108 gun package.
-
Hi Vermillion,
>Hohun, have you seen the section of the A8 manual regarding this issue that I've posted in the past? Its quite explicit on the issue.
Looking at it again armed with the additional background information on the Fw 190A-3, I find the following paragraph of special interest:
"The operating system for each weapons group is fully electrical and includes (inclusive of circuit breakers and electrical lines):
1. SVK 2-151/131E fuse and distributor box, and
2. EDSK-81 gun cocking control box."
Since the German fuses were doubling as switches (slightly different from the circuit breakers in the P-51 for example which lacked the option to be switched off manually), this means that the fuse and distributor box gave the pilot the control which weapons group to fire or not.
The fuse and distributor box is not described in the following text, but the missing section of the A-8 manual (the "Fixed Barrel Armament" part) should have some more detail on that.
Still, by either switching off the wingroot cannon or the cowl MGs, the pilot could select which of these weapons to fire with the A button on the stick, just like in the Fw 190A-3.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Thats quite speculative HoHun.
I'll look to see if I have that additional section your describing.
But regardless, that is not how the aircraft was designed to operate, theoretically possible maybe, but not how the aircraft was designed. That would definitely fall into the same area as "hot rodded" aircraft or field modifications, and is not a "standard feature".
-
Hi Vermillion,
>Thats quite speculative HoHun.
Yes, of course! :-) But it shows that there's a way gun circuits could have been switchable that's not contradicting the information we have. That doesn't mean it really was as I speculated - it just shows that we don't have enough information to prove it either way.
>But regardless, that is not how the aircraft was designed to operate, theoretically possible maybe, but not how the aircraft was designed. That would definitely fall into the same area as "hot rodded" aircraft or field modifications, and is not a "standard feature".
If the Fw 190 left the production lines eqipped with these circuit breakers, it was a standard feature. It might not have been standard Luftwaffe doctrine to use this feature, but that's a difference.
>I'll look to see if I have that additional section your describing.
That would be great! I've seen this section for the Me 410, and if the Fw 190 section is similar, we'd probably have the definite answer.
(The Me 410 section shows that there was one circuit breaker switch for the cannon group and one for the MG group. Since both weapons groups had their own arming switch on the round counter and their own trigger, their switching function had no tactical benefit however, so it's not quite the same as in a Fw 190.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)