Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[vanir]

Likely, there is a lot of such mods around, but, nevertheless, I decided to share these small mods, which adds some Bf-109s historical loadouts, missed in original IL-2:

MG 151/20 Motorkanone for Bf-109 F2, G10 & G14;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone with pair of MG 151/15 instead of MG131 for Bf-109K4 and late K4 (C3 fuel);
Mk 103/30 Motorkanone with pair of MG 151/15 instead of MG131 for late Bf-109K4 (C3 fuel).

Link to download: http://www.filefront.com/16971141/BF-109_waffe.rar

Grab a gun and have a fun!

Popular WM mod ideas certainly, but not historically accurate from what I understand. A short barrelled Mk103M was developed as a motorkanone but it couldn't go in a Me109 for a number of reasons, one being a testbed DB605 kept shaking from its mounts with the recoil but there was an intention to mount them in a much larger and heavier DB603. A number of sources including iirc Tony Williams say none were ever fitted to a production Me109 as it couldn't be done.

I have photographs of the Me109K prototype which had a pair of MG-151 fitted in place of the MG-131 in the cowling and the bulges for them are absolutely gigantic. It is very obvious externally. It was this reason (remember that MG-151 in either 15mm or 20mm versions are the same dimension and weight), that the production series Me109K reverted to the MG131 and used the G-6/AS smooth bulged cowling. No production Me109 was ever fitted with MG151 in the cowling, this is something that can be said with complete certainty, it is visually obvious from a distance and unmistakable.

The MG151/20 wasn't in production until the DB601E was and when you put those two elements in a Friedrich you have an F4, although it did incorporate other refinements adopted during production and standardised in this version. Still I can't see any rationale for an F2 being retrofitted with the MG151/20 when the F4 was available. B4 was just plain the Luftwaffe's preferred fuel type for inline engines for a number of reasons and the F4 had some equipment features and improvements such as the aeromechanical screw, I believe operation of the constant speed prop was manual in the F2 as earlier versions. There are a lot of reasons the F4 is celebrated as the finest Messerschmitt version by the German aces, you wouldn't keep an F2 if one was available. And if you can get an MG151/20 you can get an F4.

Almost all G14 had default MG151/20 motorkanone true, very many G14 were G6 modified at an aerodrome up to G14 standard, many G10 were also MG151/20 motorkanone but it was more likely I think the G10 might be ordered with Mk108 because they were all built new. IIRC all the Erla G10 were 20mm and a lot of the Regensburg ones were 30mm, who also built new G14 from surplus G6 parts ostensibly with 20mm.

So to feel historical I usually have 20mm motorkanone in G14 and Erla G10, and 30mm in G10 or if I'm flying a G14 during 1945, but that's just personal preference.

[Twister]

I suppose, both of us wasn't be there, so, we have to rely on some sources. U R free to trust your sources, I'm free to trust mine.
 

The MG151/20 wasn't in production until the DB601E was and when you put those two elements in a Friedrich you have an F4, although it did incorporate other refinements adopted during production and standardised in this version. Still I can't see any rationale for an F2 being retrofitted with the MG151/20 when the F4 was available.

Some quantity of F-2's was equipped with MG151/20 later on the fields by field modification kits, so, somebody seen some sense in that.

I have photographs of the Me109K prototype which had a pair of MG-151 fitted in place of the MG-131 in the cowling and the bulges for them are absolutely gigantic.

Looks like in some (if not most) cases MG-151 was fitted w/o bulges, as these was really too big.

Read someting like this: http://www.amazon.com/Warplanes-Third-Reich-William-Green/dp/0883656663
or, probably, better this: http://aerospace-masterbooks.co.uk/series.asp
and: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wings-Luftwaffe-Eric-Brown/dp/1853104132

[vanir]

Have you actually seen an MG151 sitting next to an MG131? It is literally twice the size, bulk and weight. Did you think 4x MG131 can fit under the cowling of the Me109 because that's what you're saying.

They were only ever fitted to one Me109K prototype, I have photographs of that aircraft. You need gigantic bulges to cover the breeches and ammunition feed, really they stick out like two towers and looks a little silly, and very unaerodynamic. But the Me109K uses the G/AS cowling made for MG131 breeches. It is not a different cowling to the G/AS. You can't fit MG151 under there.
Also my grandmothers friend flew Me109F4 to K4 and I've spoken to other pilots. It had machine gun in the nose, not cannon. It had a motorkanone.

It's possible there was a field kit for MG151/20 into F2. I'd be curious to see your reference for it.

I have Green's books and a good collection of others. I've spoken with some authors during research projects, I spoke with family members about the aircraft they flew or helped construct in factories. I've been wrong before though, but I doubt very much it's physically possible for me to be wrong about the K4 breeches, it just doesn't have the cowling for them and nobody whose ever flown one has ever mentioned cannon under there.

There was also this very argument a couple of years ago on the web, when one site claimed MG151 nose armament for the K4 instead of MG131 but it was clearly shown with source material to be poorly informed.
The same argument was had about using C3 fuel and 1.98ata in the 605D, supported by documentation the engine was only ever cleared for 1.8ata during the war for service use, although calculated performance figures for 1.98ata exist and it may very well have been tested.
Another similar issue crops up with the 605L engine, none were ever fitted to an aircraft. And the Mk103M motorkanone, which couldn't be fitted to a 605 engine and was intended for the Ta152C with the heavier 603 engine so none of these would ever be fitted to a 109K subtype, just technically impossible.
Even cockpit pressurisation, it was never fitted although it had been intended, none of the service examples of 109K had any pressurisation system installed.

There are a lot of myths about the 109K subtype, there were a lot of things it was supposed to change and update but in the end, due to the war situation it wound up simply being a refinement of the G series with a final revision of the 601/605 engine family. Its main update were in terms of installed equipment, like the new radio navigational systems, improved engine family, standardised Mk108 motorkanone, and the multirole kit for field installation of stores adaptors (the wiring and jacks were already fitted, Gustavs had to be ordered with the kit you wanted so 109K were true multiroles).

As for what the 109K didn't have, you can go to a museum and see no MG151 under the cowling, no pressurisation system, the boost regulator is set for 1.8ata and tank markings are for B4 fuel, the motorkanone is an Mk108 and the engine is a single stage blower system. That is every single Me109K in any museum or photos and clear documentation of any in service. You can visit the sites of people who restore these aircraft, the sites of people who study them professionally, and they explain the armament of the Me109K as I've described. Please visit Luftwaffe Experten forum, several published authors about German aircraft, and warbird restorers who are members there, ask them. Some of those guys have such complete documentation that if you ask them about an Me109K, they ask you "Okay what is the werk number of the particular aircraft you want the history and equipment about and I'll look it up for you."

Certainly I'm curious of any references which pop up to show any contrary to what I've stated, but the onus would be on proving unconventional claims more than disproving them.

This shouldn't detract from the value of your Mod or the work you've put into it. It's a Mod, it's a good Mod, some people will love the Mod and that is right and good. I'm only talking about where we say "this is historically accurate," that I'm unfortunately going to have to start taking exception with putting MG151 under Me109 cowlings and so forth.
Great to Mod it, fine, but it's not historical, we shouldn't say that.

[SAS~Sani]

Ok,how to fit two of these under the 109's cowling?


They are almost twice the length/width/height of a MG131...just for size comparison

[vanir]

Yeah you should see the photo I have of the prototype with the MG151 fitted, it really does look a bit silly, I wish I had it scanned. I think Alfred Price actually has this same photograph in one of his books "Great Aircraft of WWII" and he himself incorrectly stated that the 109K was armed normally this way, but as can be shown with factory documentation and any detailed research of actual werk numbers this was not the case. At the close of the war most Allies didn't even know what a 109K was except having heard the designation tossed around by Germans, they just uniformly called the later Messers G-10 and G-14 and thought it was linear progression from G-6 and G-8.

At a very early stage of ratification, the project that was to become the 109K started off as the Me209-II proposal which was cancelled and left no immediate replacement of the 109G that could make use of existing production tooling. This resulted in the default Me109K proposal and interim G-10 (in practise it wound up being produced alongside). The G-14 can really be thought of as Speer's personal efforts to maximise 1944 Me109 production using recycled airframes.

A lot of ideas were supposed to make their way into the 109K but as it turned out the main feature of this type was its multirole facility as equipped from the factory. In practise an Erla G-10 was a better fighter pilots' plane and recorded the higher performance figures of the late war Messers. Pilots themselves however really didn't distinguish from an Erla G-10 and a Regensburg 109K on paper (except the K-4 were usually fitted out for jabo, schlacht or tactical recon and it was inherently heavier than a G-10), or say Augsburg G-10 and Regensburg G-14 (just different engines usually, but otherwise the same thing in layout and fit). These examples pretty much had identical layouts if given the same equip and had like performance.
Just for say, a Hungarian G-14 you might find it had a surplus 1943 DB601A-1 installed that was just laying around the factory, although the build quality for the airframe was much nicer than those made in Germany, which might have an ASM or later series AM motor fitted, in 45 even some DBM series.

The real guts and glory late war Messer was without a doubt the Erla G-10. It was lighter than a K-4, more streamlined around the cowling, had the lighter MG151 motorkanone and had the same 1850hp engine. It was also almost never fitted as a jabo. Just a stripped down dogfighter with the sole purpose of shooting down Mustangs over Berlin. Pilots I've talked to/heard all say the Erla G-10 was the highest performing Messer of the war (but the F-4 was the nicest to fly).

Make it heavier, use the general G/AS cowling and chuck in an Mk108 and you've got a K-4, but most of these will be carrying an SC250 or a droptank, a nice little batch with the gunpods as schlacht (ostensibly KG staffeln). It's a multirole at a time where things other than fighters were most needed. Priorities were already shifting over the Ta152C zerstörer and late series Doras to replace the Luftwaffe fighter contingent in production terms, as interim for the new jet fighters and jabo for the next couple of years as they were sorted.

The 109K turned out a bit of a storm in a teacup, in practise it was no different to a really good G-10 with the same fit but an Erla G-10 was better. In terms of werk numbers it is extremely difficult actually telling the difference between a historical G-10 and a K-4 and it takes quite a bit of investigation of the individual airframe history and factory records purely because they are as far as factory parts and equipment goes, exactly the same thing. In at least one case I'm aware of the only tell was a small label plate on the fuselage that was inconsistent with G-10 production and therefore identified the individual werk number of the airframe as a K-4.

G-14 are easier to trace because most of those have a G-6 werk number stenciled over with another one.

[Twister]

Ok,how to fit two of these under the 109's cowling?

Nohow. One sources tells, these was installed half-covered, other sources tells, these was not covered, so I can speculate, at least barrels was just protruded.

[vanir]

Of course the breech is even bulkier for the electrically fired MG151 used for synchronised mounts (you can see in sani's picture, the percussion MG151 is in the outer station, the bulkier electrical MG151 for synchronisation is inboard).

Certainly the prototype 109K fitted with MG151 shows that it could be done, so ultimately it is just a cosmetic difference in the model appearance and an FM change that when the 151 are used the K-4 has the G-6 type cowling with bigger blisters that stick out quite a lot, to cover those breeches. My estimation is that the aircraft in this configuration would lose at least 15km/h (this is probably the reason K-4 serial production went back to the MG131 and used the G/AS cowling as you only lose about 6km/h over a G-2 configuration with MG17).

The Mod is not completely unsound, but if being pedantic I would support a new slot 109K with MG151 using the G-6 cowling with enlarged gun blisters and a new FM to reflect the performance change.
The long nose FW are a different case because the extra length between cockpit and engine was designed to allow heavy armament fitment from the beginning. But even the Fw190A would have trouble fitting MG131 until the front fuselage was lengthened in the A5, we had a discussion about it at Tony William's site, and the MG131 was very compact, designed to go where MG17 had been.

All the more reason the MG151 really is a very different kettle of fish to a MG131, it was really designed to be engine mounted, not cowling mounted and it is so very much bigger, and gets bigger again in the synchronised version. The 15mm version has a longer barrel and is heavier than the 20mm one too, which is even worse.
The Beresin B20 now that is a 20mm cannon well designed for a cowling mount. It's no bigger than a Browning 50cal.

[Shido]

Twister, if you have the time

MG 151/15 Motorkanone for Bf-109 F3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone + 1x Droptank for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone + 2x Droptank for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone + 2xMk 108 Gunpods for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone + 2xMk 108 Gunpods + 1x Droptank for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone + 2xMG 151/20 Gunpods for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone + 2xMG 151/20 Gunpods + 1x Droptank  for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone + 2xWfr.Gr.21 for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone + 2xWfr.Gr.21 + 1x Droptank for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone (No MG131s) for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone (No MG131s) + 1x Droptank for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
MG 151/20 Motorkanone (No MG131s) + 2x Droptank for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
2xWfr.Gr.21 for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
2xWfr.Gr.21 + 1x Droptank for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;
2x Droptank for Bf-109 K4, K4C3;

[Twister]

Any historical/technical references/photos on this ?

[Shido]

From Bf 109 F, G, & K Series by Prien and Rodieke:

Armament of the K-4 consisted of an engine mounted MK 108 cannon, which by now was installed on the production line, as well as two MG 131 machine-guns above the engine.  There were aircraft, however, which were delivered with an MG 151/20 engine-mounted cannon.

[Twister]

What about "No MG131s" loadouts ?

[Shido]

Hi Twister

What about "No MG131s" loadouts ?

Bf-109 G10, G10Erla, G10C3 have "No MG131s" loadouts
Bf109K could use these loadouts too
so why not?