Think about it, late Bf-109s are already good at sniping. Imagine if they had two cannons firing at the center plus the two 13mms on top. It'll have the burst weight of a Ki-61 but the accuracy of a Bf-109.
@@jkahgdkjhafgsd the only problem (other than the performance drop) is that you need to set a convergence distance for them to work, and they're inherently not as accurate as the fuselage-mounted guns. Having that gunpod under the fuselage would give late Bf-109s the same firepower as the Fw-190D-9
@Mialisus Well, it's not like they didn't suffer any adverse effects even with the continued development of the DB600 series of engines. Their maneuverability went down the toilet from the increased weight and drag. By that stage though they needed maximum firepower to be brought to bear against massive bomber formations in a narrow window of attack. The 190 was probably a better platform for ongoing development of a prop-fighter for that role. However they needed as many aircraft for the role in the air as they could get at any and all costs. Retooling for Messerschmitt to produce the 190 wasn't an option either when they were just waiting for the BMW 003 (replaced by the Jumo 004 in practice) to become mature enough for the 262 to go into full production.
These things always remind me of people talking about changes to equipment, infrastructure, etc like it is as simple as wishing it to be so without any real understanding of what is actually involved.
well, it is assuming full power of hindsight xD if they had done things with foreknowledge of how they would work out xD Always they are stumped when I ask, how were they supposed to have known that?
The Me-109G-2 to G-6 were premier fighters all the way to the end of the war. They were so good the addition of 325 horsepower in June of 1944 (with MW-50) proved useless, and so it’s performance remained stagnant from late ‘42 to late ‘44. It hardly mattered, as the real problem was pilot skill rusting from weeks without flying, due to fuel shortages. Because it carried little fuel it was hard to set on fire and rarely burned its pilots during crash landings. It’s fully mobile tail unit gave it the best high speed elevator dive response of any WWII fighter, if properly trimmed. It could match turns with any Western allied fighter (while the FW-190A exceeded them all in low altitude turns), and, unlike the FW-190A, it matched the Allies in climb and was much closer to them than the FW-190A in high altitudes turn maneuvers, if not quite matching them. The extra wing firepower hardly affected it except slightly in dives, and gave it superb firepower. It was extremely low cost to operate, and had a higher refurbish rate after crashing than any other type. It’s pilots gained hundreds of kills because it kept them alive through many crashes, while the airframe returned to the air when most other types would be junked... On a cost/effect basis no other fighter is even close. Engine change was 2 hours while two days on a P-51... A shot up wing was 2 bolts to replace, and was rated 13 Gs to the P-51’s 12 Gs unreplaceable fixed wing (like most fighters). While the Me-109 could not turn with a P-47 it vastly outclimbed it, and matched the P-51 in most respects except absolute top speed. The later Spitfire IX outclimbed it, but no longer out-maneuvered it, if it ever did... By contrast the P-51 was unsafe to crash-land, directionally unstable past 380 mph (snaking requiring constant pedal action), and, worst of all, had 3 times the gun jam rate of the P-47 due to Gs in turns, this only improving to 2 times in the D model... Prolonged dogfights often ended with just one gun working... The P-47 and P-38 were probably triple the cost of a 109 to operate, the P-38 being generally inferior, except later models in climb. To say the 109 was antiquated by 1944 is false: Even the canopy’s flat panes did not distort the view, which was good in flight, and it could seat a 6.4” pilot with more lateral head room than the top of the flat FW-190A canopy (though that was far better on the bulged version). Unlike what many assume, the FW-190A caught fire more easily, and often burned its pilots on crash landing. The 109 was in no way a has been, and had almost no real weaknesses aside a short range. It was not the strongest in any one area, but unlike many types was strong everywhere.
1:48 This is the first I knew that they tried a centreline gunpod on the Bf109. It's also the first I ever heard about the Me163 having wing gunpods. Fascinating. I wonder how they synchronized it.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Yes - instead of building what is essentially a semi-automatic firing mechanism for the gun, (Since the aircrafft gun's rate of fire (shots/sec) is generally less than the propeller's retational speed (revs/sec), Synchronization is essentially firing single shots when the master propeller blade signals that the path is clear. With electrically primed ammunition, instead of a mechanical solution, with all the changes to the gun itself that would be required, you just have to control the firing impulse from the airplane's electrical system. This does bring up the question of why were the motor-cannon MG151/20s percussion primed at all? Is there any reference to electrical primers being set off by stray voltage from, say, the engine magnetos? I know it's a problem with electrically primed artillery and rocket motor ignitors.
@@peterstickney7608 expense I imagine. Normal primers were understood technology and they were already in production along with the impact sensitive explosives for primers ect ect. Then for electrically primed ammo you need a high voltage I imagine to get the powder to go so you need a generator and some system to raise the voltage. All added weight and complexity and more parts that need to be produced
All pilots wanted 4 155mm guns automatic with about 1000 rpg, and weigh no more than Walter PPK, fly in 900 km/h with full throttle for about 5 to 6 hours, and handle like a Fokker Triplane, at 12 000m.
Nothing like waking up to a new MAH video. Never knew such a centerline pod was proposed. Looks even more ungainly than the gondola pods. Fantastic work as always Bismarck.
While it's true that the gun pack is wider than wing gondola, it's no deeper; you only have 1 of them (not two); it is on the centerline for better balance (rather than hung on a wing), and, I think it carried more ammo than a single wing gondola. Overall, a better deal.
Pretty simple tactics, get up high make a straight line attack and shoot at as many bombers as you can. dive away and then leave the arena to return to altitude for attacks on the egressing bomber streams. Using a large caliber cannon with explosive warheads. Maneuvers and dog fighting were not in the envelope.
OP you must be familiar with the famous quote from FM Erhard Milch (de facto head of the Luftwaffe) - when asked at war's end the Luftwaffe's biggest mistake, his heated reply was "140,000 unbuilt fighter aircraft!"
In which case, they needed to build bigger airplanes. But the accepted European design philosophy was to build the smallest airframe that they could cram the biggest engine into, and then try to find space for the fuel, guns, and pilot. This leads to small, generally high performing short-ranged airplanes with low combat persistance.
As an aviation enthusiast and World War II Aviation military buff as well as a combat flight simer for decades I've spent time looking for all and any information going as far to translate flight manuals and I have never seen this configuration.... awesome work!
Watching an interview with Gunther Rall, he said he flew with just the nose mounted weapons as the wing pods could move during hard maneuvering causing the guns to jam.
I love your presentations, because you include factual information combined with excellent graphics, and a very colorful use of the english languaje..You are creating a classic program that in due time, would be very hard to beat. Thanks for sharing such good and interesting information that most people dont want to talk about it..
Really like this series. Armament and how it affects aircraft performance and mission requirements is rarely discussed in detail except occasionally in discussion boards. Please keep up the good work!
Israelis pilots thought to improve rearward visibility/awareness in their American production fighter jets... They bought a few off-the-shelf rear view mirrors that looked to be the right size, shape and contour from the local auto parts store.. Presto! Pragmatic upgrade implemented for their entire compliment.
The U.S. response to this problem was to put six .50 cal. guns on most of its fighter aircraft - three in each wing. This approach was probably due to the fact that the U.S. fighters never had to go after enemy bombers. The .50 cal. is an excellent combination of power and volume. Those .50's probably could have shot down bombers if they had to go after them. A .50 cal. was likely to penetrate anything in the air at the time. We kept our .50's until after the Korean War. Our F86 Sabers carried six of them.
One enemy bomber they did have to go after was the Mitsubishi G4M "Betty". But that had almost no armour protection and took very few hits to set it on fire.
Or at least try. If you actually don't compromise, your plane design will be terrible, because there's no such thing as non-orthogonal design constraints when it comes to aircraft design.
Good video; I have never seen the center pod either on a 109 or on a 163. I believe one item missed is the fact that putting on the centreline would mean you would not be able to use an external fuel; highly important w the 109s short range.
Well.. talking about 7-15km/h differences in speed makes little sense in real deployment because even if you take 10 (on paper) same model BF109 machines in same condition, there will be some variables due to manufacturing tollerances easily reaching +/- 10km/h differences in max speed and later in war even more :) So those results are quite good in fact. But yes it reduces flight performance somewhat. Not only by speed, but aircraft is heavier, looses speed easier, accelerates slower etc..
I listened to am interesting interview with a 109 pilot and he complained about the wing pods that their mountings broke loose constantly and left the pods hanging below the wing
So this is interesting. I also did a bit of surface level reading about the planned K variants, beyond the K4. And one variant was planned with 2 x 108's in the wings. The 108 is a heavy gun. I wonder if you know if there were any tests done on that setup or if it was still just a planned idea.
There's pictures available of new wings (in-factory) with the guns installed. I've seen them in some WarThunder forums discussions about the K-6 & K-14. So it was a done deal; just required assembly and flight testing.
In response to the outro, I wonder if this request is in response to a finding that given that you would only get one chance in attacking bombers, that hitting a target with more chance of bringing down the aircraft might be preferable?
Yeah. My understanding of this - was that the Luftwaffe would provide regular fighter escorts for the "fighters" that had been fitted with these external cannon - as they were hopeless at defending themselves - but much deadlier to bombers. .
Loving you going to archives. Are you able to find luftwaffe gun cam footage there too? I read in comments once the Americans destroyed most of the Luftwaffe gun cam footage. Have you heard that or know it if its true? You and Greg's Airplanes are the best WW2 aviation channels.
Thank you for your videos. The following is a direct quote from one of the Aircraft I used to operate. I hope you find it as interesting as I did. Thanks again for your awesome work. VA = Volacity Abrupt Movement of controls that will not cause damage to the Aircraft Wings and or Structure.
The underbelly pod appears to get in the way of the auxiliary fuel tank. The 109 was such a ridiculously inadequate aircraft after 1942. I don't understand the mania about it. It was the Albatross DVa of WWII.
You always have great content thanks bunch 🙏🏽. Did you made the model planes on the bookshelf by yourself ? If you did you should made a video about those too looks good from here!
A forgotten aspect is that the mission doctrine was to collect as many fighters as possible in order to achieve superior strengths for the attack . This meant that very long flight times were required for climbing, collecting and reaching the attack position. The 109 and 190 needed additional tanks for this, which the 109 could only carry on the fuselage centreline rack. A cannon here would make the 109 useless for attacking bombers or only allow useless individual attacks which would only have led to extreme losses.
Danke fur die video Bismarck. Always wondered why it took so long for the cowl 7.92 MG's to be upgraded. Especially after the Battle of Britain, when even the bombers during that action were getting MG/FF cannons to up the firepower.
Upgrading to 13mm MGs required those hideous bulges on the sides of the nose to clear the gun breeches, hardly the sort of thing Willy Messerschmidt wanted to ruin his clean sporty design with. Also there was probably limited supply of 13mm guns initially, so the 7.92mm guns remained until they were no longer useful.
Great video ... I think Messerschmitt's insistence on keeping it small caused a lot of problems with the BF109 from cabin size and undercarriage failures to under armament issues. Really interesting to learn about the development from source files. As a primarily American flying pilot in War Thunder, the early 109's are little worry but the G6 with 3x 30mm cannons is a terror!
I am pleasantly surprised to find that you are a young-ish man. From your voice in your WT plays with BoTime, I always thought you to be a distinguished 40-something. Very educational talk; I'm definately going to view more of your vids!
Hey Mr.Bismarck! I know you are very busy, but could you consider doing a video about your profession? As in how you get the proper education, how you get payed, etc. Thanks!
like your videos as someone who is interested in aviation since i was a child and a flight sim buff as well. I have a question for you though. Which IL2 1946 MOD/Setup are you using for your videos? From what i see, i think it is 1.4.10m with DBW enabled. Also as a Political Science MA graduate, i would like a video about the use of airplanes and aviation technology as a propaganda tool (Which literally took to skies during the Spanish Civil War) and even art form such as the Italian "Aeropittura" by the likes of Tullio Crali
Great video, as always. @militaryaviationhistory, I have a serious question though: at around 9:14 you show a centrally mounted engine cannon. Is this a fact - you seem quite convincing! - these spinner guns really did exist? I read some time ago elsewhere (where, I can't remember) an equally convincing story that those holes in the spinner were often mistaken for gun ports (like I always thought too), while in fact they were only used for added air cooling. Could you please enlighten me? Thanx!
Having only seen gunpods in use on the Su-25 and Mi-8 ATV in DCS, I always assumed they were a more modern thing - usually deployed for specific ground attack purposes. I had no idea they were set up in WW2 for use by planes that already/usually had multiple forward facing guns.
Perhaps they should have placed the MG151 right behind the oil cooler with the barrel firing straight through it through a specially made orifice. The drag would not have been increased, since the oil cooler is already taking the area. And I'm sure they could have found enough room for ammunition and the ammunition storage and feed system inside the fuselage. Just a thought.
Hey Bismarck, good video about the bf109 , it should be worth nothing that both the fw190 and bf 109 suffered when adding more armament to the airframe and thus made them more vulnerable to escorting fighters like the p51. Now I am thinking about that , I am very surprised that you haven’t done a video on what worse considered the worst allied fighter used in the pacific , the Brewster buffalo. The plane was superior to the f4f and was meant to be the primary us naval fighter but they kept the f4f, it became underpowered and then became seconded to the f4f. It was used by the British in Malaya because “it was the best fighter that they could get “. And basically got slaughtered because of its sluggish performance and poor agility. It was only after some armour and armament was removed that it could match Japanese fighters. It’s also an example of the fact that the Germans didn’t have more powerful engines that undermine a lot of planes.
My thoughts: 1. Luftwaffe was painfully slow at employing unguided rockets to deploy for an initial pass over bomber formations. 2. Airframe limitations would have been severe in the 109 which was apparently more fragile than the 190 as the 109 seemingly required the deletion of the upper guns to support that single lower gun in a pod. 3. When times get tough, there aren't resources to experiment very much; you just *have* to go with what seems to work. There is no time to try what seems to be a better option. Else a dual-gun pod would have been trialled to "maintain" the original firepower. [Enclosing envelope and therefore drag lower than 2 separate pods.] Given longer development (also not available); a single gun with higher (double) rate of fire. 4. While there is good reasoning to allow for "competitive" fighter designs, including as it was being able to use different engines, development resources should have been more focused on the best candidates for particular combat roles. The phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind. 5. Competent pilots were as much in short supply as were technicians to retrofit equipment packs. If substantial electrics were to be relocated, then it'll be as much effort if not more than swapping an engine. Similarly; pilots need to become familiar/experienced with different gun arrangements. Much of the lag in weapons development may be attributed to the mantra that the war would be over in a couple of years and that there would be no time to introduce new weapons before final victory. "Sitting on your hands" for a couple of years puts you at a disadvantage; especially when it's the basis for military mindset.
To answer the last question, if Hitler had anything to do with the decision, he would often not take the request or suggestions from Field Marshals or Generals. This was a problem with small arms as well as big picture scenarios.
10km seems high for the missions they needed to fly with the extra armament. I wonder whether this was being considered in the event of the B-29 showing up. That could also explain the parallel development.
Deine Präsentationen sind wie immer sehr interessant und cool ausgestattet. Mein Interesse an WW2 technischen Themen rührt von meine Großvater her der im WW2 als Fahrer unter anderem Panzer wie Tiger und Königstiger, aber auch LKWs und Motorräder. Das Interesse begleitet mich schon mein Leben lang und das es auch andere wie Dich gibt ist sehr erfreulich. Bin aber selbst nicht so tief in den Themen drin wie Du, natürlich.
In a vacuum, having 2 center line mounted guns of the same type make sense to me to attack bomber formations, at least you don't to run into convergence issues throwing most rounds in the wind in that single pass you get... I also learnt that there was a percussion primed version of mg151... I had always thought all the german maschinenkanone of that era were electrically fired TIL
The underwing gondolas always bemuse me. The earlier 109s had MG151s in the wings, the Gs didn't. But I also note that the later 109s had bulges for tyres. Is that why they got rid of the wing guns? I suppose also that skipping MG13s and shoving MG151s there instead would have been problematic. The Do335 had MG151/15s in the nose, but that was a very different aircraft altogether.
Hi good video, thank you. I have a question for you,,,,,,,,,,why did the BF109 only use a 3 blade propeller? ( NOT the version for the Spanish with the Rolls Royce Merlin after the war) The Spitfire started with a 2 blade propeller, then 3, then 4, then 5, even 6 ( 3+3: contra rotating) to absorb (use) the increasing power from newer engines? But Messerschmitt seemed to stay with only 3 blade propellers ,,,,,,,why? they obviously captured many allied aircraft with 4 blade propellers.
What they did instead of adding more blades was widen the blades. I think they did this because the guns had to be synchronized, whereas most allied planes used wing mounted guns
@@user-yv1bf4rx7r I think the use of 4 end 5 blade propellers started when engines became too powerful and 3 blades proved inefficient in turning all that power to trust. And quite right, some planes had wider 3 blade propellers such as the 190 D9 or the 109 K series. the counter rotating system was used to counter the huge torque that a single propeller would create, notably dangerous in high powered planes such as the 109 and spitfire where taking off accidents where common
Why didn't the Luftwaffe mount 2 additional cannons in the wings of the later Bf 109 models like they did with the Bf 109E models which had 20mm cannons with limited capacity in the wings? Of course with lesser drags than wing pods.
I wondered the same thing...the wing was basically the same, and like you said the earlier models had wing mounted cannon. Even a pair of MG131 would have been better than nothing. Also, I am positive Adolph Galland mounted a pair of 20mm in his F or G wings as a demonstration...I have seen the picture a few times where he was showing it off to a group.
I think the Me-109 development should have included redesign of the wings making them aerodynamically acceptable and strong enough to carry a pair of MG 151/20 mm internally, rather than messing around the whole war with awful external pods. I think three mg 20 mm guns would have been fine as the centre motor canon is probably more accurate than extra wing guns. Dropping the MG 131s altogether and more ammo for the 20s might have been a weight saving over all.
I think it comes down to the basic concept of the aircraft. The BF109 was designed as a fighter/interceptor with a large powerful and heavy engine fitted into a very small frame. And as such it was always going to have limited capacity for fuel and weaponry. Redesigning the entire wing would have been a major undertaking for a fighter which was already beginning to be outdated by the middle of the war, being outclassed by the P47, the P51 and other allied fighters.
The 109 was intended to be a fighter-interceptor. As the war wore on the 109 was called on to do more than its design could successfully incorporate especially given the improved competition on both western & eastern fronts. The end result was inevitable, unstainable losses and eventual defeat. I think if the 109 had been improved as a fighter-interceptor, not a bomber interceptor, it could have remained competitive but then Germany needed to find a way to deal with the Allied bombing campaign. Given the German air resources and shortness of time, I don't know what they could have done that would have been successful.
Maybe i muddle up with G4 and G5, but doesn't have the Reconplanes only their MG131 armament and the more powerful DB605 AS? Also, the most significant difference between a clean plane and one with underwing gunpods is the wingload. I will not know how careful the pilots must have been with the MK108 gunpods. The fuselage-wing mounting is the greatest structural weak point after the to smal landing gear the 109, later it is the wooden tail. If you go to the archives, you should search for reports of Adolf Galland and his 109F with the Emil wings. That could be very interesting.
Bismarck. You’ll always be Bismarck to me. Please address this issue. There’s loads of Chris’s , but only one Bismarck. I think you’re a great mlitary historian Bismarck. Please use your original nom de plume Pete 🇬🇧
Were there ever WWII era single engine fighters or ground attack aircraft specifically designed to have an underbody cannon as part of the fuselage, to fit a bigger gun on the plane without using a gun pod? I know motorkanone and the Russian equivalent were used, but I repeatedly run into the designers finding limits on the size of the autocannon they could fit in such a design.
Chris, excellent video as always. Clean , concise, and informative as always. Question; originally the BF 109 had 20mm cannon inside the wing, then was dropped from production. Later the 20s were reintroduced in an external pod. I can understand the unwanted change in production requirements associated in late war Germany to reintroduce the internal gun would create, but with the degraded performance of the 109s in using gun pods, would it not be logical to return to the original system? Could you please shed some light on this.
This happened at the same time as a wing redesign that accompanied changing from the 109E -to the 109-F. Perhaps the structure needed to support internal wing cannons was deleted in this redesign because the intention was to mount primary armament in the nose. In any case, the 109E's wing cannons were the MG/FF, a smaller, less powerful cannon than the MG-151/20 that was typically mounted in the external pods. It's likely that the 151/20 was too large to fit inside the wing along with its ammo supply.
@@nerd1000ify Thank you so very much for your reply. Perhaps you could answer another question for me, I've long wondered why the U.S. never upguned our fighters with cannon,(with the exception of the P-38, and P-39), during the 2nd world war? Our opponents had our boys so out gunned it seemed almost criminal!
@@densyyy2909 A couple of reasons: the USAAF was convinced that the Browning M2 was 'good enough' and upgunning to cannon was unnecessary... But also the US had big problems producing a reliable aircraft cannon. This seems to largely be a result of pig headedness: both the US and the UK elected to use the Hispano cannon as their 20mm aircraft weapon, and both intially had issues with jamming of the guns during combat, probably because the Hispano was originally designed for a motorcannon mounting in French fighters, and took poorly to a cold, less stable position in the wings (The P-38 never seemed to have many issues with its nose mounted Hispano). The Brits (having only the .303 Browning as an alternative) put great effort into fixing these issues and eventually got their cannons to work reliably. The US did not adopt these fixes, even after the Brits gave them one of their cannons so it could be copied. As a result the USAAF developed a view that 20mm cannons jammed all the time, and as they were mostly facing less durable fighters rather than heavily armoured bombers the heavier punch of the cannon wasn't needed. The US Navy didn't share this view and slowly started replacing .50 with 20mm towards the end of the war, so the later models of Corsair and Hellcat did have the option of cannon armament.
@@nerd1000ify As I thought! I was aware that by the time of the Korean conflict the F4U Corsair had 20mm cannon as standard equipment, although the P-51 didn't along with the F-86. I remember reading in Robert Stanford Tuck's book "Fly for your Life" Douglas Bader told the British war ministry,(when asked), that the .303 machine guns were "good enough for him". Luckily they didn't listen, and later versions of the Spitfire came equipped with 20mm cannon, I can't remember which model was the first to be equipped with them , but Tuck was very happy about that. Again sir I greatly appreciate your reply, and information. Thank you!
@@densyyy2909 2x Cannon and 4x .303s became standard on the later Spitfire Mk Vs. There were some cannon armed Mk IIs, but the reliability woes of the early Hispano and the lack of a belt feeder (limiting the cannon to 60 round drum magazines) kept the 8x .303 loadout in production right up to the Mk Va. There were some Mk Vc Spitfires that even carried a 4x cannon loadout, but that led to other problems so they settled on a mix of 2 cannon and 4x .303.
I didn't know the MK108 became standard on the Me-109G-6. I had previously thought it was introduced in late 1943 and became common in early-mid 1944 (rummages for copy of Prien & Rodike).
I was confused by him saying this too. The MK108 was never standard on the G-6, there was a factory modification to add it (Umbausatz) with the designation G-6/U4. According to Prien and Rodeike, "From the summer of 1943 WNF delivered a considerable number of G-6 aircraft in which the MG 151/20 engine-mounted cannon had been replaced by a 30mm Mk 108; this installation received the designation G-6/U4." So I wouldn't call that "standard". Again in the same book they state WNF produced 80 G-6/U4's in Werknummer block 20000 - 20800, and an unspecified amount in numbers 440000 - 441000. Even if all of them in the latter block were U4's that's still a rather small number compared to the roughly 12,000 G-6's produced.
2 things come to mind; what was the performance vs the bf 110.. the actual purpose built bomber "destroyer"? and, was there not damage to the oil cooler? the muzzle blast i would expect, have damaging effect on the fragile cooler.
Germany still has a public domain, unlike the US who sold our souls to that F* Mouse.. The kids growing up these days think that every design or picture must be OWNED by someone. Sad really.
I've always quietly wondered about the effectiveness of gun pods. Still the idea that you could take say a A-10 and strap on another 6 or more 20mm gun pods does have a certain appeal.
Would this installation also not have an impact on the oil cooler efficacy ? By creating an air dam behind the cooler outlet and backing up air pressure, lowering airflow and there for cooling.
The motor cannon was first used in the 109-F. Earlier models only had mountings in the upper nose and in the wings, though the intention was always to use a motor cannon eventually and the design of the prop spinner reflected that fact.
A question I've long had about the Bf-109- With it's lack of anything substantial in the wings...most notably landing gear, but also guns (in most models), did it's rate of roll increase and if so, how much? If significant rates of roll were increased, did that have a practical effect in combat? Ok, that more than one question- still, I have been drawing blanks on this long standing question in my head,
Certainly lack of guns and fuel made for light wings, but the landing gear was still in the wings when retracted. Yes the mass of trunnions was inboard, but the wheels and brakes were outboard, and I suspect they were no lighter.
@Matt Clements I guess you mean due to less mass further from the center of roll rotation...I don't know...but the design also results in the ability to make the wings significantly thinner w/reduced drag. Even though wheels were in the wings, having the gear mounted further inboard meant they didn't need nearly as much structural strength (weight, thickness) on the wings.
@@57thStIncident Mass out in the wings adds to the rotational inertia. The wings support the entire weight of the aircraft, so they have to support the weight of the landing gear even if it retracts into the fuselage, so the strength needed of the wing remains the same regardless of where the gear is stowed. In fact the more weight you carry in the wings the less bending stress they have to resist at the fuselage, and most modern jets fill their wings with fuel. It is easier to make the wing structure stronger by not having large holes into which the undercarriage retracts, but that was also not the case with the Bf-109.
@@gort8203 "rotational inertia" - this is what i was alluding to with 'mass distance from center of roll rotation', your (better) term eluded me at the time I wrote it. Agree that while flying, the wings support entire weight, but I'm thinking that on landing, the stress is focused on the structure connecting and between the gear struts & mounting. So when gear is mounted narrow (Bf109), the amount of wing that needs to be sturdy enough to handle those stresses is also narrower (potentially lighter overall and helping with that rotational inertia by keeping that mass closer to the center), and the leverage for that bending stress you mention is reduced. The wing structure on a wider-mounted undercarriage like a Fw-190 needs to handle the extra forces when landing where the gear is on a 'longer lever' from the fuselage. I'm imagining the types of force encountered from both flight and shock of landing stress the structure a bit differently -- obviously both have to be accounted for. I think along with how to build aircraft out of metal, everyone was simultaneously trying to figure out retractable gear then too -- like still trying to allow for manually cranked gear etc. (at least as an override) rather than relying 100% on electrics/hydraulics -- look at the gear on the F4F Wildcat (which of course also had the additional factor of folding wings) or Polikarpov I-16. And obviously with props and nose-mounted engines you had still additional factors for the compromises on whether to put the heavy guns & ammo in the wings or the fuselage.
@@57thStIncident I believe a wing strong enough to withstand the stress of an 8 G turn can easily withstand the stress of landing. If wide track landing gear made fighters heavier I doubt it would have become the more common configuration once monoplane wings thick enough to easily house the gear came along. But I would like to see a structural analysis of that issue if anybody has one handy.
I have not seen this anywhere on RU-vid or my small amount of reading on WWII - but how much did captured/crashed planes influence the design improvements of enemy planes? I was thinking about earlier Spitfire issue of the engine choking out at certain angles and why they didn't just learn from crashed German planes
Brits: Oh look, fuel injection, maybe we should look into this? Beatrice Shilling: Try my orifice, it's a cheap and simple device you can fit to existing Merlin engines. It wasn't perfect, but it did the job. Later in the war new carburettor designs handled negative G fine.
Why am I not surprised to hear the Germans built both types of primed ammo for the MG 151/20s. They did almost anything they could complicating industrial and logistical problems. Anyways MAH, keep up with the good work.
Thank you for the video Chris! I have a very simple question: Why instead of using performance robbing gun pods ,didn’t they just install the 20 mm canons inside the wings in the same manner the Emil had them installed? That would have had greatly improved aerodynamics without decreasing firepower. I never understood why they removed the wing canons in the first place from the G model!
The wing cannons on the Emil were MG/FF, not MG-151/20. Much less powerful and not a ballistic match with the motor cannon, not to mention having a small ammo supply of only 60 rounds each. I'm guessing the MG-151/20 plus ammo was too bulky to fit in the wing, so they had to use a pod.
@@tasosangelopoulos2849 The MG-151/20 is a physically larger, heavier gun, and the Messeschmidt wing is a very confined space- even the MG/FF required blisters on the underside of the wing to clear the ammunition drum. Drum feed isn't an option on the 151, it needs a belt feed and ammunition box. The Brits had to get really clever with the ammo box design on the Spitfire (they're very long and thin, which is why the guns are weirdly spaced out along the wing rather than grouped together), and it's a physically larger aircraft with more room inside the wing for equipment. Even then they had to put blisters on the wing to clear bits of the feed mechanism. My guess is that the 151/20 simply wouldn't fit into the wing, not with its ammo reserve anyway. So they went for the next best thing, a conformal pod that is as small as possible. I'm fairly sure that the gondolas contain only the cannon itself, with the ammo box occupying the wing space above.
This shows the advantage of having air superiority. The Mosquito was notoriously loaded down with all kinds of weapons for ground attack in 1944-45. Undoubtably this seriously degraded its flight performance, but the Western Allies had air superiority so who cares. Of course, if you happen to be an unlucky Mosquito pilot who encounters one of the few remaining German fighters, then sucks to be you. But if you happen to be in an infantry unit that is receiving awesome air support then you approve of every single weapon stuck upon the Mosquito.
Messerschmidt test krew: "Ve can add 3 möre MG 151/20 on ze Gustav. Vant? Pilot: Ja, bitte! Meanwhile, I was shocked to learn they used the fabled Me 163 pods! It was added to 163, but AFAIK, no known photo exists of a 163 with pods. As to why percussion rounds persisted? No need for electricity to make it fire, although not sure if there was mechanical firing triggers.
The only sensible solution was to mount an optically-synchronized 40mm detachable gun-pod under the pilot. E.g. the same gun from the Ju-87G Kannonenvogel.
Very interesting. Too bad there is no data comparing performance with a single pod to with dual pods. But I do not understand the speed difference between single and 3 pod configurations noted at time 4:50. You said the speed "achieved" with the single pod is 25 KPH faster, which sounds like maximum achievable speed, but it is listed as Va, which as you said is not top speed. I do not understand how deletion of the underwing pods would increase the maneuver speed by 25 km/h. Maneuver speed is the intersection of structural limit with the lift limit, and deletion of the wing mounted pods would if anything make the wing more efficient and need less speed to provide the same load factor, while retention of centerline mass would not increase the limit load factor by reducing bending stress on the wing. An increase of VA is not of benefit to maneuverability as it increases instantaneous turn radius and decreases instantaneous turn rate, so that might argue against the installation from a kinematic perspective, but I don't understand this apparent decrement in performance
Hi do you know if there was a system in place that meant that any bf109 with extra gun pods would engage bombers as a priority and ones without acting as a escort harassing allied escort fighters to compensate for the decreased manovarability of the gun pod equipped 109s
