Jump to content

Why were ME-109G wing cannon underslung?


Ryan B.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

 How about the Yak 3?

 

If you can explain how sticking sizeable lumps of weight into a wing are NOT going to increase the rolling inertia and hence make the aircraft less agile, I think that you are going to have to argue the point with greater authorities than me.  It is purely a matter of physics.  (What's your opinion on gravity?) 

 

 

I'm not sure what brought on this kind of disrespectful response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

It was not a matter of being weird and the high commands changed a lot of their views based on the experience of the war. Simply in some aspects they continued to follow paths that had been proven to be satisfactory. Nose mounted armament have pros and cons and the same apply to wing mounted armament, the Italians kept a mix of the two simply because they found this to be succesful.

 

 

 

Yea, I was just kidding on the weird thing. Sarcasm doesn't translate on the internet. 

 

It's probably just my own bias, they just always seemed a step behind to me. But your right they where applying the tools they had the best they could. And it's not like they were the only ones still using that layout the Ki-84 and Ki-100 spring to mind.

 

8 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

The MC.205 is an example: this aircraft did indeed retain several features of the MC.200 but this was due to the fact that the 205 was little more than a re-engined MC.202, in itself an advanced derivative of the MC.200. A good number of structural components were carried through from one design to the other and so was the overall layout of the 3 aircrafts

 

Yea, I knew about the evolution of the C.205. But it hadnt really occurred to me that the reason the 205 had the cannon in the wing was because the 202 was orginally designed as a 4 gun fighter. It seems so obvious now.  For some reason I always think of the 202 as only a 2 gun fighter only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

 If you can explain how sticking sizeable lumps of weight into a wing are NOT going to increase the rolling inertia and hence make the aircraft less agile, I think that you are going to have to argue the point with greater authorities than me.

 

The maximum roll rate is more a matter of how good the ailerons were, and does vary a lot with speed, but agility is more a measure of how quickly you could reach that roll rate.

 

I don't disagree with the theory (or physics) of rolling inertia, but I think that aileron design was a far more significant factor at least during WWII.  Of course, it also occurred to me that at the same time that the RAF was moving toward heavier firepower, out in the wing, they were also imagining that maneuverability would not be that important, since they'd be shooting down unescorted bombers.  Perhaps another example of dogma evolving to "justify" necessity, in addition to the stupendous lack of flexibility of (some) imaginations.

 

It also occurred to me that just as, thanks to jet engines, the guns moved back into the fuselage, it became common to hang fuel tanks all the way out on the wingtips!

 

bob

Edited by gingerbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you are being a bit unkind about limited imagination when it comes to the multi-cannon armament, given the short time between that and two light mgs as a standard fighter armament.  I can think about others that might apply, such as the drive to higher altitudes at the expense of performance lower down, or the "keeping it on the island" approach?  However it is difficult to blame the AM for limited imagination when it (or at least various influences on it) came up with (for example) the Defiant, Turbinlite, Pandora towed mines, AI radar, biplane Hurricanes for ferry range, CAM ships - not all terribly brilliant but certainly flexible.

 

Of course aileron design is important but once the design is fixed, adding armament (weight) in the wing will reduce the agility in roll and (depending upon installation) negatively affect the handling around other axes.  Yes, it you are only thinking of intercepting bombers that's of less importance than firepower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...