quote:

Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
That certainley appears to be a gun muzzle sticking out of a BF109E prop spinner, ty for the debunking.

I *think* that is a MG17, as has been mentioned already.

quote:

Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
id still like to know why Bf 110s had the same hole in the spinner....anyone?

I guess just because it had the same engine and therefore the same propellor.

quote:

Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

quote:

Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
id still like to know why Bf 110s had the same hole in the spinner....anyone?

I guess just because it had the same engine and therefore the same propellor.

Actually, that suggests to me that the hole may have been used for cooling - after all, making hole-free spinners is hardly going to be a major job. In fact, depending on how they are made, it might even be simpler...

This is what I have read over the years on the Motorkannon issue.

The E-series was designed to have an MGFF firing between the inverted cylinder banks and out the Spinner hole.

In testing they either found inadequacies with the cannon or the mount. Heat and vibration was also an issue. E-3's were delivered with the cannon but its fail rate and vibration usually meant it was removed almost immediately with some initial E-3's having them but most scrapping the idea right at the factory.

By the E-4 the option was gone completely and never subsequently tried again until the F series.

Later 109E-7 series had a cone to cover the hole on the prop cover since the idea was dropped by then.

BF-110 had same prop cone as 109E that's why they are the same.

I would like to see a source on that the Emils never carried engine cannons

Kurfurst__ do you have that available to read?

I dont want to start a flamewar or argue i just want to learn!.

All i say is that we still have Rob Erdos that says that the Bf 109E-3 he flew (White 14) had a engine cannon and then my book.. i just want to see why this is a "myth"



"The E-3 production variant during the period September 1939 about May 1940 had the MG FF/M hub-firing cannon, but the cannon was very unpopular in service and was often discarded."

The source for this is in: Aircam Aviation Series No. 39 (vol.1)

Messerschmitt Bf 109B,C,D,E in Luftwaffe & Foreign Service by Francis K. Mason

Osprey Publishing.

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:

quote:

Originally posted by Metatron_123:

quote:

Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
There is a cut away diagram of the BF109 E4 on page 12-13 of Francis Masons German Aircraft of WW2 which shows the position of an oil resevoir in the space that the gun breach occupies in the BF109F onwards, exactly as csThor said.

I have never seen in picture or reliable print a pre F BF109 with a hub firing weapon either and I'm willing to bet money if Kurfurst cant find it it doesnt exist.

P.S. just because the modders modded something doesnt make it real.

My two cents...

At least some where fitted but according to my sources the Bf-109 E-3s that were fitted with the gun later had it removed...

That isn't a gun, that's Adolph Galland's cigar. It was always rumored he stuck his cigar into the end of his airplanes prop to keep it lit while he flew combat missions due to the prop wash. This was quite possible since the 109 had such 'short legs" as you all well know. Now we have proof.

It is a tow coupling. Mtt experimented with bomber towed fighters. The idea was the bomber could simply bring its escort with it and conserve the limited fuel of the fighter.

The VDM propeller was full feathering, so the fighter simply feathered the propeller and became a glider.

Drop tanks proved to be more practical.

The DB601 is designed to mount a weapon firing thru the propeller shaft. There was not a reliable cannon in service at the time the BF-109A-E's airframe was designed no provision was made to mount the weapon. According to Mtt, no production BF-109A-E series had a Motorkanone.

Did you guys know Mtt made their own propeller designs? Propellers are extremely complicated and the most sophisticated piece of equipment on any propeller driven aircraft. The RLM ordered Mtt to fold its propeller company into VDM. They experimented with increasing the STOL capability of the BF-109 by developing a reversible propeller that could change pitch at 60 degrees a second. Most CSP change at 6-9 degrees a second so 60 degrees a second represents a significant advancement in propeller design.

One of Mtt's design was actually produced in quantity.

All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
................

"The E-3 production variant during the period September 1939 about May 1940 had the MG FF/M hub-firing cannon, but the cannon was very unpopular in service and was often discarded."

...............

actually this M desigantion has nothing to do with the german word Motor=engine.

guess what the main difference between an E-3 and an E-4 was............. the E-4 had MG-FF/M in its wings the E-3 MG-FF.
This M showed that this canonversion was able to fire mineshells.

quote:

All i say is that we still have Rob Erdos that says that the Bf 109E-3 he flew (White 14) had a engine cannon and then my book.. i just want to see why this is a "myth"

No, he didn't say that.

What spawned this is a caption on a photo in th article, probably put up in error by the Webmaster to go along with what Rob wrote, which says that engine mount cannon were used in 109's. (which is true, most 109's had the engine mount cannon) I doubt that Rob would absolutely assert that this 109 had a cannon mount. I know Rob, and have met the guys from the Russell Group, the owners of the 109, and most of these aircraft have their original weapons fitted, (rendered non-fireable) and so if you went to the Russell Group and ask them what the armament of the 109 is, they will not tell you it has a engine mount cannon, since very simply, you can't fit one in this engine, there is no space.

I think this is just a error, probably made by the webmaster.

20mm Hispanos on Vintage Wings Hurricane, "Flying Can Opener":



By the way, Rob flys this Hurricane, note in the picture the distance between the tips of the Props and the ground, not much space.

Remember what he said in the article about the 109, that the Spits and Hurris have their center of gravity much closer to the cockpit. In the case of the Hurri, this is not much of a problem, but with the Spit, you need to be careful you don't tip the plane over onto its nose.

On the other hand, the Hurricane has its very wide set undercarriage, and is very easy to land or takeoff, directionally stable, unlike the 109. The undercarriage on the Hurris was so strong, the aircraft required no modification in order to be used off Carriers. Most WWII aircraft which are converted to carrier use from normal field operation, require strengthening of the undercarriage to deal with the shock of landing on a carrier deck. The Seafire IIs, converted Spitfires, had some strengthening, but even so, had a very high incidence of undercarriage collapse. During the Salerno invasion, when Seafires based on carriers provided most of the air cover, something like 50% of the available Seafires were out of action by the end of three days, due to undercarriage issues.

So to clear things up to this point...

Metatrons image is that of a BF109E with an experimental tow coupling on the spinner, not a gun barrel and no one thus far has offered any legitimate source beyond misquotes and hearsay of the existence of a production BF109E with a hub mounted cannon.

Correct?

In about two minutes of searching....

quote:

The aircraft tipped forward onto its nose whilst landing on Runway 20 at North Weald. The pilot, who was uninjured, reported that the approach and touchdown in a three-point attitude, were normal.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_res...20G-HHII%2007-09.pdf

This is just from ONE airfield in England....

quote:

Hawker Hurricane Ia R2680 VK-? 238 Squadron RAF St Eval was damaged in a landing accident. Sgt Frederick Albert Sibley 758073 was uninjured.

quote:

Hawker Hurricane IIa Z2390 HP-A of 247 Squadron flying a searchlight co-operation sortie, swung onto rough ground on landing and tipped up onto its nose at RAF Predannack.

quote:

Hawker Hurricane IIa Z2828 HP-? 247 Squadron based at RAF Predannack landed heavily with drift during bad weather. Sgt D C Deuntzer was unhurt but the aircraft was damaged.

quote:

Hawker Hurricane Mk X of 1449 Flt St Marys, Isles of Scilly. Undershot landing and undercarriage leg collapsed.

This is Google's cache of http://www.rafdavidstowmoor.or...h_log/crashlog42.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 26 Aug 2009 02:54:43 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime

quote:

Undercarriage collapsed in heavy landing.

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=15218

quote:

It is an ex-RCAF aircraft which suffered two landing accidents in service with a coastal defence sqn and a training unit.

http://www.militaryairshows.co.uk/hurri.htm

It is a conventional gear airplane and has the same risks as any other conventional gear airplane.

All the best,

Crumpp

Salute

Below is a link to Rob Erdos report on the Hurricane IV.

This aircraft is much heavier and more highly powered than BoB era Hurricanes, these models were manufactured in Canada and saw most of their use in Burma as ground attack aircraft.

This aircraft is only flown at maximum +4 boost, the real aircraft was able to use up to +16 boost levels.

Note his comments that similar to the 109, it has visibility problems, and has a cramped cockpit.

He notes how easy it is to taxi, takeoff and land, but doesn't get into as much detail on maneuvering it as he did with the 109.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=246&lang=en-CA

And here is a report on flying the Spitfire XVI, this one by Mike Potter, the CEO of Vintage Wings.

Note the comments re. ground handling, and maneuverability.

This aircraft is flown at a max. +6 boost, the real aircraft were flown up to +25 boost.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=211&lang=en-CA

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In about two minutes of searching....

quote:

The aircraft tipped forward onto its nose whilst landing on Runway 20 at North Weald. The pilot, who was uninjured, reported that the approach and touchdown in a three-point attitude, were normal.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_res...20G-HHII%2007-09.pdf

This is just from ONE airfield in England....

quote:

Hawker Hurricane Ia R2680 VK-? 238 Squadron RAF St Eval was damaged in a landing accident. Sgt Frederick Albert Sibley 758073 was uninjured.

quote:

Hawker Hurricane IIa Z2390 HP-A of 247 Squadron flying a searchlight co-operation sortie, swung onto rough ground on landing and tipped up onto its nose at RAF Predannack.

quote:

Hawker Hurricane IIa Z2828 HP-? 247 Squadron based at RAF Predannack landed heavily with drift during bad weather. Sgt D C Deuntzer was unhurt but the aircraft was damaged.

quote:

Hawker Hurricane Mk X of 1449 Flt St Marys, Isles of Scilly. Undershot landing and undercarriage leg collapsed.

This is Google's cache of http://www.rafdavidstowmoor.or...h_log/crashlog42.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 26 Aug 2009 02:54:43 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime

quote:

Undercarriage collapsed in heavy landing.

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=15218

quote:

It is an ex-RCAF aircraft which suffered two landing accidents in service with a coastal defence sqn and a training unit.

http://www.militaryairshows.co.uk/hurri.htm

It is a conventional gear airplane.....

All the best,

Crumpp

Not sure what your point is Crrump?

All aircraft have accidents, especially those which are 60 years old and which are flown by pilots with lower levels of experience.

The Hurricane by any analysis had a much heavier and more stable undercarriage than either the 109's or Spitfires, and was far easier to land and takeoff in.

See Rob Erdos article on the Hurricane.

quote:

The only challenges on landing are poor forward visibility and the need to be pretty comfortable with three-point landing technique. A gently curving approach to the runway threshold will solve the visibility problem. (And, by the way, all those World War II Spitfire veterans were taught that way and will expect to see it.) Over the fence at 90 knots and a last look speed of 80 knots and you will be well set up. Take a good look at the cross wind as you come short final and program your mind for how much side slip you want to feed in on the flare, because it is not easy to judge the drift once that long nose starts to come up. Flare to a tail low or three point attitude, remembering again how light and responsive the elevator is, and enjoy the arrival. It may jiggle around a bit on that ridiculously narrow undercarriage, but there is no mean streak in this airplane. Although the tail wheel is free castoring, the big rudder is very effective as long as you are reasonable fast with your feet.
Oh, and easy, very easy, on the brakes.

Wow! As long as you know what your doing, very comfortable with the landing technique, and stay ahead of the airplane, it is a real pussycat!

quote:

it’s normal to run out of aft elevator trim on approach.

Elevator effectiveness is poor in the 3-point attitude. Leave a trickle of power through the flare or it will drop out from under you.

That's not very good or conducive to safe landing. It only took a few minutes of searching google to find a few accidents because of this characteristic.

quote:

Hawker Hurricane Mk X of 1449 Flt St Marys, Isles of Scilly. Undershot landing and undercarriage leg collapsed.

quote:

Undercarriage collapsed in heavy landing.

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=15218

quote:

The Hurricane’s undercarriage is wide and soft, and the directional stability and response allow adequate tracking through the roll-out. Compared to the Spitfire, there’s even enough download on the tail to allow some use of brakes.

That's good, directional control is "adequate" on a normal rollout. That is better than the T-6 Texan which has very poor control at certain speeds on rollout.

However should we not have a normal rollout, whatever force a taildragger swings the swingback will be force squared. Whatever the case, it is better than the Spitfires tail-load but not as good as the Bf-109's.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=246&lang=en-CA

The point is all of these are conventional gear aircraft. You have to know what you are doing when you fly them and all of them can bite. All of them are safe as long as they are operated correctly.


All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
All of them are safe as long as they are operated correctly.

everything but Kevorkian machines are safe when operated correctly

And suicide bombs and nukes....

quote:

everything but Kevorkian machines are safe when operated correctly

Exactly! There is very little to choose from in conventional gear aircraft. That is why your insurance rates are much higher for any aircraft just because it has a tail wheel.

RV-6 come with tri-gear or tailwheel...much higher insurance rates if you choose a tailwheel. Why? All conventional gear aircraft are harder to operate and the physics only allows a designer to pick his poison. There is no such thing as a "pussycat" with a tailwheel.

C170 will run twice the insurance rate over a C172 just because of the tailwheel.

http://www.eaa.org/insurance/a...-12-15_insurance.asp

The argument that one conventional gear airplane is less prone to landing accidents than another conventional gear airplane is really silly.

Mostly it comes down to folks reading much more into anecdotes than is really present.

All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The argument that one conventional gear airplane is less prone to landing accidents than another conventional gear airplane is really silly.

All the best,

Crumpp

Got statistics?

Salute

The people who get to fly these aircraft are usually those with extensive experience already, but still everyone who takes these irreplaceable aircraft into the blue have to jump through a lot of hoops.

Rob Erdos talks about what is required before you start the engine and taxi away:

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=557&lang=en-CA

Following is another take on the Hurricane IV, by a rookie, who runs into the types of problems which can arise when you are flying an antique.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=548&lang=en-CA

Salute

And here is British pilot Howard Cook talking about preparing to fly one of the only flying Spit V's in the world:

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=513&lang=en-CA

By the way, despite his extensive experience, Howard Cook suffered serious injuries this summer when the mild mannered Tiger Moth he was flying, lost all power just after lift off. He is now recovering in hospital.

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Mostly it comes down to folks reading much more into anecdotes than is really present.

Or just using whatever comes to hand for agenda rhetoric.