Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums

p-80 V Me 262

Aviation Discuss p-80 V Me 262 in the World War II - Aviation forums; But also the weight of 1 MG 151/20 plus 1 MK 103 are only a little heavier (~50%) than ...


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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-14-2007, 02:26 PM   #391
Senior Member
 
kool kitty89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,273
Country:
But also the weight of 1 MG 151/20 plus 1 MK 103 are only a little heavier (~50%) than 2 MK 108 guns. Though 6 MG 151/20 would have been an interesting armament too, or for a pure dogfighting armament, 6 MG 151/15 guns would be totally superior to the P-80's M2 BMG's. 6x MG 151 guns (both 20 or 15mm weigh 42kg each) weigh about the same as 4x MK 108 cannons (60kg each) so weight wouldn't be a problem, though I'm not sure if there's enough room to be practical. (they would certainly fit as larger armaments like 6x MK 108 were made too, but these had problems, and I don't know if other problems would occur)

As for the MG-FF/M, it was inferior in performance every way to the MG 151/20, except for weight, and this did not make up for the poor performance elsewhere as the 151/20 still had a higher specific firepower (energy/time/gun's mass). Though the Mk II Hispano cannon was better in some respects (though heavier and a lower ROF), and the Mk V in all.(same gun weight and ROF but much higher velocity and shell mass) Though the USSR's B-20 was probably the best overall 20mm cannon of the war, with slightly higher performance than the 151/20 and weighing only 25kg, that's 3kg less than the MG-FF/M and 4kg less than the Browning M2!

Here's a good resource for gun and ballistics data: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables
The site is geocities based and up and down a lot, so I posted the cached version from google.

Last edited by kool kitty89 : 11-14-2007 at 03:44 PM.
kool kitty89 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 11-17-2007, 06:53 PM   #392
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,538
Quote:
Delcyros, you might have missed it before so I'll ask again. I'm still not sure which model you meant KG-51 used since it certainly wasn't the BMW 003 powered Me-262 A1b. They were ground-attack so would have used the fighter-bomber A-2a right? And what do you mean by ETC?
I have been out for some time. I will adress this first. The corretc terming for the bomber variant is Me-262 A-2. Not A-1 as I stated previously (mea culpa). The difference in A1a and A1b are not the engines (such prototypes existed but they didnīt got a serial designation) but whether or not the fighter variant had R4m rails.
An ETC is the pylon for droppable ordenance.

Quote:
If that is the case and the gun mounts were messed up, then it should show up on all the other 262s that had racks fitted. As far as I can tell, all the noses with MK108s were the same. Me262s of JG7 had racks fitted.
Not all had racks fitted for bombs! The JG-7 only had two Me-262 A-2 operational by any time. The fighter nose, as I stated above differed substantially in structural framework and materials used. The JG-7 later had R4m racks refitted but ETC 504 were not as far as I know. Can always be that it missed my radar....

Regarding the armement, the soviet B-20 probably is the best 20mm weapon but it lacked a proper mine round, making it a mediocre performer in blast effects. A 6 x 20 mm MG 151 armement could improve dogfighting and interceptor capabilities greatly. The reason why I had not considered this kind of armement was that the 20mm MG 151 AP round is a poor performer, You cannot really use this armement in ground attack against even lightly armoured opposition. Even the 0.50cal AP is better, the Hispano MK II is really good but the 30mm MK 103 is truly great!
__________________
---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 11-17-2007, 09:08 PM   #393
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 220
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by delcyros View Post
Not all had racks fitted for bombs! The JG-7 only had two Me-262 A-2 operational by any time. The fighter nose, as I stated above differed substantially in structural framework and materials used. The JG-7 later had R4m racks refitted but ETC 504 were not as far as I know. Can always be that it missed my radar....
Do you have drawings showing these structural differences?
AL Schlageter 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 Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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

vB 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 -5. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
   

AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com


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