3 Messerschmitts fly again

Parallel to the crank...Yes, but it below the crank going through the gap of the inverted V.

AFAIK, the 109-K 30mm was 65 round belt-fed with the Ammo box mounted to the left of the cannon. I believe the G was similar.

 

One of the purported selling points. It was hoped that by "borrowing" parts already in production, it would help speed construction. However, performance was subpar, and the engine fell far below expectations.

Given the vibration of the engine itself, that of the cannon would be of little consequence over the life of the aircraft.

 

Willy Messerschmitt always envisioned the main armament of the 109 to be in the nose. That is why he inverted the engine so that the cowling guns would fit. He then had to add fuel injection because carburetors wouldn't work from below the engines. It seems there was some difficulty firing a MG FF20mm through the engine boss (severe vibration) so the E model had two MG FFs mounted in the wings. The vibration problem was corrected by the time the F model came out. There was a lively debate in the German fighter community over whether this arrangement with its few concentrated guns was preferable to more wing mounted guns.

 

Is that why the Focke wulfe variants didn't have Cowling mounted cannons? Or was it simply Focke Wulfe's intention to have wing mounted guns all along?

 

If you notice that on the FW190 there is a faring covering the cowling MGs. Both the 109 and 190 started out with 7.92 MGs in the cowling. Later, they upgraded to 13mm MGs. Nothing larger under the cowling was ever contemplated for the 190 as far as I know. The main armament for the 190 was to be in the wings with the secondary armament over the nose with two 20mm in each wing. As you probably know, the 190's outboard 20mm s were often removed to increase speed and maneuverability. Then, when they needed to shoot down heavy bombers the outboard cannon were revived and even replaced by Mk 108 30mm guns. I hope this answers your question.

 

Takao and Harolds, thank both of you for greatly increasing my understanding of this situation, really like that drawing even though it is not clear to me how the 20MM has room. Most interesting as to why the engine was inverted and fuel injection utilized. Necessity does breed invention as the old saying goes. And JJ thank you for asking questions that I wanted to know as well..

The Me 109 was a rather remarkable airframe that lent itself to many modifications over the entire war. It too, not unlike the SMLE, is rather cobby looking for a high-performance fighter. Odd shapes, bumps, squared off in places but a brilliant design. It has a "mean" look, an aesthetic appropriate to its purpose, good to have a better understanding of it,.

At the Kebley Museum, 25k outside of Prague there is an MB 600 engine on display but it was sitting in a group of planes, a 109, P-47. Spitfire, P-40 and a 262 hanging overhead and I failed to examine it as well as I should, too many wonderful distractions. It is not a fancy place but crowded and crammed full of fantastic planes.

 

Thank you for the explanation Harolds, you did indeed answer my question. I never knew the Germans removed the wing mounted cannons for speed and maneuverability. Did it really have that much of an impact, otherwise I would think they would general keep the 20mm's, as one 20mm could ruin any allied Fighters day. This has been really enjoyable and informative for me!

Thank you Gaines, I agree with you that the BF-109 design is very unique, and seriously impressive for a early 1930's design. I too got to see a MB 600 up close while at the Flying Heritage Museum in Seattle back in February, a very beautiful aircraft and engine......sounds beautiful too

 

Hope that one has a new airframe !!!! Great sound, I agree, v-12's are very harmonious !

 

They sound good in boats too...

 

Yes, I too get very nervous when a warbird, let alone a very rare BF-109, does stunts like that. I could ahve an entire thread on the pleasing sounds WW2 aircraft engines produce.................hmmmmm

 

Actually JJ, I'd be more nervous about the landings and takeoffs than the acrobatics. That's where most of the accidents happened. I remember reading that one expert opined that 109s (this was post-war) should be used on grass fields ONLY since the grass dampened the plane's tendency to ground loop. I suspect the Germans carefully inspected EVERYTHING on that aircraft in great detail before they let it leave the ground! Anybody got an idea of the net worth of a flying 109 today?

As far as the 109 looking "cobby", I'd have to agree with you on the early versions (up through the E). With the F version the plane was given a thorough going over and a lot of the bumps and sharp edges, as well as the old-fashioned tail strut, were eliminated and rounded off giving a much more pleasing impression.

The other innovation the 109 pioneered was the leading edge slats. They made the 109's wings literally variable geometry. They were spring loaded and increased the wing's lift at slow speeds. As the speed increased the air resistance pushed them in making the wing a better high-speed platform. It also helped when making tight turns. The slat on the inside wing (which was slower that the outboard wing) would come out giving the inboard wing more lift and thus staving off a stall spin. This device was also put on the ME 262 and copied on the American F-86 Sabre.

 

Takeoff and landing certainly is sketchy, the same problem arises for the Spitfire and Seafire variants. I wouldn't be surprised if a 109 could sell for 3 to 4 million.....maybe more. I think the later model BF-109's look really good actually, they're quite attractive, and they definitely fit a "villain look" if that makes sense....

 

The motorkanone could only be mounted in inline-engined aircraft, but the cannons in the wing roots of the FW-190 were close to the centerline of the aircraft and the gunsight, almost as good. Of course these guns had to be synchronized with the propeller. Later models of the MG151/20 featured electric priming, so that synchronization meant switching an electric circuit on or off rather than using mechanical interrupter gear, so there was less reduction in rate of fire. This was also true of the MG131 which became the cowling guns in later Me109 and FW190 models.

 

Perhaps, this will photo, with the engine and nose removed will help.

The 20mm cannon is mounted behind the engine, with the cannon barrel going into the tunnel through the engine.
If you look in the lower-left of the DB601 cutaway drawing, you will see the "tunnel for cannon." This is where the barrel went into the engine.

These drawings should also help
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ac/fd/2c/acfd2c82161fcbaaf7703519f9aa36e0.jpg

 

Takao, You cannot imagine how happy you have made me, I have had a frustrating day trying to weave heating and air ducts thought a complicated house and still have plumbing to go.... what the designers of fighter aircraft had to do make my work look like child's play. what a nice break to see the amazing photo and those exemplary l drawings. I blew them up and studied them closely as they exactly answered my questions. The 109 becomes a far more interesting design. I did not realize the 20mm sat so far back allowing the ammunition belt to be in the wing root and the gun receiver almost between the pilot's legs. The inverted engine and fuel injection become all the more clear. The muzzle is also set back and the muzzle flash contained by the aforementioned tube thru the hollow of the "V". and nose. I presume the tube has a means of exhausting air rearward. Brilliant design if a little complicated, great German engineering.

I was always amazed at how small WW2 fighters could be, the 109, 190, Yak 9 and Spitfire are essentially a 27-liter V-12 engines in a snug frame with armament, gas, wings , retracted wheels and controls .....and a human squeezed in. My all too brief flight tucked onto the radio platform under a normal canopied Yak 9, doing loops, barrel rolls, and tight turns did much for my aging imagination !!! And greatly increased both my curiosity and appreciation for the brave men who flew them in combat. It seems impossible to me. Especially a sky full of them.

Thank you most kindly, my southern tongue, for taking the time to look all this up, much obliged........another anachronism ....this forum is the bomb, make that ottobomb Gaines

 

Another tidbit: it seems the 109 didn't eject the empty cases into the atmosphere. They were caught in a sump below the engine and were available for recycling or reloading!

 

.......now that's taking the extra step..........impressive.........

 

Ive read (years ago) that many pilots de-activated the cannon due to vibration...

 

As I recall, they experimented with the motorkanone in the early 109 models like the E, and it didn't work out, leading to the installation of cannons in the wings. One reason for the redesign in the 109F was to fix this and allow the wing guns to be eliminated.

 

The 20 mm cannon was the way to drop the Soviet Il-2. Normal mg's would not do that.