Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Aviation

Aviation Discussion on the aircraft of WWII.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-01-2009, 07:13 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 339
Galland's specially armed Friedrichs and cowling bulges

I wonder if anyone has more info on these. I knew for a long time Galland had a Friedrich that kept the Emil's two 20mm MG FF cannons and ran on 100 octane fuel.

However I didn't know about the second specially armed Bf 109 F: It had no wing cannons, but was equipped with 13mm MG cowling guns much like the later G versions. Now confusingly, the only drawing I have found shows a much smaller and much more streamlined blister for these guns than the Gustav later would get. Anyone know why this much more aerodynamically looking version was not adopted for wider use?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Galland's Friedrichs.JPG (24.6 KB, 3 views)
KrazyKraut is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 07:34 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,726
Points us to a very interesting question. What else speial modifiations are known for ace A/C?
I read that Mölders flew one and Hartmann likely did, too.
But is anything known about them? Gallands Bf-109F2 was driven by 100 oct. -as all other -F2. The Db-601N requires 100 oct. fuel.
Were higher than normal boost ratings used for these special mods?
__________________
---delcyros---
delcyros is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 08:01 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,765
Hi Krazykraut,

>Now confusingly, the only drawing I have found shows a much smaller and much more streamlined blister for these guns than the Gustav later would get. Anyone know why this much more aerodynamically looking version was not adopted for wider use?

I've just seen a post on another forum that pointed out that the "standard" bulge accomodated the chute to the container for spent cartridges.

The drawing you posted shows that the spent cartridges are not collected, but ejected from Galland's converted aircraft.

I'm not sure what the reason might be - perhaps the ejected cartridges were feared to inflict damage to the tail of the aircraft?

(I don't know if a larger, but sealed blister might actually cause less drag than a smaller blister with an opening. Cowl aerodynamics could be complicated at times.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
HoHun is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 09:13 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Aquincum, Pannonia Prima
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKraut View Post
Anyone know why this much more aerodynamically looking version was not adopted for wider use?
It appears to me from the drawing that Galland's field-modified 109F has dumped the spent cartridges right away in the open, whereas the 'official' version of MG 131 installation collected these in the fuselage.

Perhaps large amount of brass flying around the fuselage was considered dangerous.
__________________
__________________________________________________

http://kurfurst.org
http://kurfurst.freeforums.org/index.php
Kurfürst is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 10:30 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKraut View Post
Now confusingly, the only drawing I have found shows a much smaller and much more streamlined blister for these guns than the Gustav later would get. Anyone know why this much more aerodynamically looking version was not adopted for wider use?
Caldwell in his JG26 history wonders the same thing. According to him the gun modification was made in the unit, not in the factory. So the explanation could be as simple as: Different people, different solution.

One of Gallands shoot down claims (abschussmeldung ) in one of these specials (109F-6/U) below:

Timppa is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
Design by HTWoRKS


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118